Let's be realistic: Your vote (if you get one) and your money will have a limited effect. But we as individuals can influence the race on a macro scale with a little organization and a little luck.
Consider this a clearinghouse for supporters of non-Clinton candidates to discuss ideas for exposing Clinton weaknesses. Not pie-in-the-sky "if I were David Axelrod" ideas, but concrete individual actions that could influence the media narrative.
Specifically I'm talking about going to a Bill Clinton event and asking a question that prompts him to shoot his mouth off again.
Related and contemporary article: Bill Clinton, Stumping and Simmering - NYTimes - Healy
Let's get this out of the way first: I really liked President Clinton. When he got angry at Chris Wallace I cheered him on. I'm personally offended by disparaging references to his sex life. I've defended the guy against my own parents. But he and his wife's vision for the Democratic party is deeply inferior. And his outbursts are clearly the Achilles Heel of Hillary's campaign. Between the "fairy tale" rant and his impassioned plea for fewer caucus sites in one of the most heavily populated areas in the country, this guy is a ticking time-bomb who's already gone off twice in two weeks and shows no signs of stopping.
In both instances, he has over-responded to moderately aggressive questions. Clearly the NSEA lawsuit is a subject that gets him riled, but time is limited on that one. If anyone in Nevada can get to a Mr. Clinton event today (Friday) and ask something akin to "Why were you defending the attempted closure of caucus sites in such a densely populated area, that sounds like a Republican scheme", it might set him off.
Looking past Nevada, here are some other avenues to explore:
-- "Bob Johnson supports Social Security privatization and estate tax repeal, and he made billions selling gangsta culture to impressionable youth. What do you like about him?"
-- "At the last debate, Hillary said she voted for the bankruptcy bill but was glad it didn't pass. Does that make any sense?"
-- "After 7 years of silence on George W Bush, why are you campaigning against your own party members now?"
-- "In Michigan, 70% of blacks who went to the polls voted for Uncommitted when your wife was the only major candidate on the ballot. Why?"
-- "If Hillary thought her 2003 Iraq vote wouldn't lead to war, does that mean she was fooled by George Bush? Why should people who weren't fooled vote for her?"
These aren't Tim Russert 'gotcha' questions. To entice Angry-Bill from his den you'll have to hit him with something hard that confronts him with a genuine failure of the campaign, or reinforces his belief that all press coverage is biased against Hillary. And none of these will work on Hillary herself, the worst she would do is pause awkwardly and dance around the question. Bill will try to take a challenge head-on because he thinks his off-the-cuff aggression is a great asset to the campaign.
A quick side note to those of you whose minds are racing with inconvenient questions you'd like to confront Obama or Edwards with: If you get a chance to ask, go for it. But good luck trying to Bill-bait a campaign with no Bill in it. The Clinton campaign's unique weaknesses are:
- The campaign's narrative (most disciplined, best judgment, inevitable, black people love us) has so many holes in it at this point you could knock it over with a feather.
- Their biggest, most irreplaceable asset is a hothead who keeps shooting his mouth off and nobody in the campaign can control him.
---------
I'm obviously going to take a lot of flak for suggesting a coordinated effort to throw the Clinton campaign off track. My preemptive response is this: Where were you when this community made a name for itself opposing DLC-loving, "experienced", hawkish, establishment Democratic candidates all over the country? Were you not a part of that, or did you just forget? If Markos were alive today (by which I mean actively weighing in on relevant Democratic campaign issues), the dangers of a Clinton nomination would be laid bare on the front page every day. But the self-imposed near-agnosticism of much of our progressosphere leadership on the Clinton Question is distressing; regardless of our Obama or Edwards preferences, we should be opposing Clinton in a very direct way. Instead we're getting spun up in the minutiae of fantasy policy-proposals and campaign tit-for-tat. Let's put that crap aside for a bit and answer the only question that matters right now: To Clinton or not to Clinton?
If Lieberman had made a campaign-killing gaffe in response to a tough question in his Democratic Senate primary, the cheers from this site would've been deafening. So please consider that before you accuse me of sabotaging the Democratic Party. If, however, you think I'm attempting to sabotage the Restoration of the From-Ford-McAuliffe-Emanuel-DLC "We're afraid of the word Liberal" Identity-Politic Pander Party, I'll happily admit to that. Anybody else here still feel this way?