Hillary and the Politics of Disappointment, by Paul Loeb

[jefferson_dem]

Hillary and the Politics of Disappointment
Posted November 24, 2007 | 04:37 PM (EST)

When Democrats worry about Hillary Clinton's electability, they focus on her reenergizing a depressed Republican base while demoralizing core Democratic activists, particularly those outraged about the war, and thus maybe lose the election. But there's a further danger if Hillary's nominated--that she will win but then split the Democratic Party.

We forget that this happened with her husband Bill, because compared to Bush, he's looking awfully good. Much of Hillary's support may be nostalgia for when America's president seemed to engage reality instead of disdaining it. But remember that over the course of Clinton's presidency, the Democrats lost 6 Senate seats, 46 Congressional seats, and 9 governorships. This political bleeding began when Monica Lewinsky was still an Oregon college senior. Given Hillary's protracted support of the Iraq war, her embrace of neoconservative rhetoric on Iran, and her coziness with powerful corporate interests, she could create a similar backlash once in office, dividing and depressing the Democratic base and reversing the party's newfound momentum.

Think about 1994. Pundits credited major Republican victories to angry white men, Hillary's failed healthcare plan, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." But the defeat was equally rooted in a massive withdrawal of volunteer support among Democratic activists who felt politically betrayed. Nothing fostered this sense more than Bill Clinton's going to the mat to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Angered by a sense that he was subordinating all other priorities to corporate profits, and by his cavalier attitude toward the hollowing out of America's industrial base, labor, environmental and social-justice activists nationwide withdrew their energy from Democratic campaigns. This helped swing the election, much as the continued extension of these policies (particularly around dropping trade barriers with China) led just enough Democratic leaning voters in 2000 to help elect George Bush by staying home or voting for Ralph Nader.

No place saw a more dramatic political shift than my home state of Washington. In November 1992, Democratic activists volunteered by the thousands, hoping to end the Reagan-Bush era. On Election Day, I joined five other volunteers to help get out the vote in a swing district 20 miles south of Seattle. Volunteers had a similar presence in every major Democratic or competitive district in the state. The effort helped Clinton to carry the state and Democrats to capture eight out of nine House seats.

But by 1994 grass-roots Democratic campaigners mostly stayed home, disgruntled. In Washington State, there were barely enough people to distribute literature and make phone calls in Seattle's most liberal neighborhoods, let alone in swing suburban districts. Republicans won seven of our nine congressional races, and reelected a Senator known for baiting environmentalists.

The same was true nationwide. I spent that campaign season traveling to promote a book on campus activism, staying with friends long involved with progressive causes. Everywhere I went, critical races would go to the Republicans by the narrowest of margins. Yet my friends and their friends seemed strangely detached, so disgusted with Democratic politics that they no longer wanted anything to do with it. Surveys found that had voters who stayed home voted, they would have reversed the election outcome. Even a modest volunteer effort might have prevented the Republican sweep.

To prevail in close races, Democrats need enthusiastic volunteer involvement. This happened in 1992, and then again in 2006. If Hillary is the nominee, she's likely to significantly damp this involvement, especially among anti-war activists. She'll also draw out the political right in a way that will make it far harder for down-ticket Democrats in states like Kentucky and Virginia where the party has recently been winning. She might not win at all, despite Bush's disastrous reign.

<SNIP>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/hillary-and-the-politics-_b_73957.html

[keep_it_real]

1. Hillary is a corporate America "man."

Bite man if I'm wrong

[IndianaGreen]

2. She is also a shill for the Israel Lobby

which is why she voted for Kyl-Lieberman, and why she will support the bombing of Iran.

[neutron]

10. And Hillary's a LESBO

Haven't you heard?

Edwards people, get a clue.
Stop villifying good candidates.
Your candidate doesn't have a prayer.

And the democrats won't have a prayer if
Iowa gives us a candidate named "Hussein."

bill was a brilliant president, and Hillary is the
best candidate of this group.

[The River]

3. All of This and More

I'm afraid is true. I just can't understand her appeal
to anyone who isn't very well off and/or connect to the status quo.
I think much of the hype about her qualification and front runner standing
is media generated. Her supporters exhibit a missionary zeal for stifling dissent.
I'm beginning to think, for them, it's all about something other than nominating
the very best Democrat we have.
The Clinton Years are over.
We need real fighter on the side of We the People.

[99th_Monkey]

4. The Bush-bots heart Hillary. They already know where her weaknesses are.

They'd have a much harder time publicly trashing Edwards or Kucinich, or even Biden or Dodd for that matter.

[lvx35]

5. Unfortunately this isn't true.

Hillary won't lose based on lack of activist support. I would love it if we lived in a nation where grass roots activist support were that relevant, but the sad fact is that it really isn't, and we have nobody but ourselves to blame. I will vote for Kucinich in the primaries, but I vote for Hillary every day in my actions...Every dollar that I give out day after day to the corporations is money that I've given to the idea of a candidate who works with corporate interests. WE'VE invested in them and WE'VE given them this power...I mean we let corporations conduct all the freaking debates that we watch and sit here talking about, without question. Think about that. We're living in a fantasy land if we thinking canvasing people door to door is going to compete with the influence of AOL Time/Warner and the rest. Its wake up time: We need to create an alternative system to the dominant corporate paradigm, an alternative which empowers us economically enough to exert influence like corporations or we need to accept irrelevance and stop bitching about candidates who refuse to bow to it!!!

[PDittie]

6. Hurting Democrats down-ballot

is really and truly my biggest beef with Clinton. Not my only one, but by far my largest one.

Here in Texas, where we're just beginning to inch out from under the NeoFascists, she sets us back another generation if she leads the ticket. She will use us like an ATM (just like Gore and Kerry did before her), blowing into Houston and Dallas and Austin and blowing back out with millions of dollars, money the locals could use to get elected. But the sad truth is that he won't be able to campaign with them anyway, since she riles up the opposition so much.

I just don't think our democracy can withstand much more of that same old stuff.

[zulchzulu]

7. Spot on...K&R

You can bet that if Clinton is the nominee, I know of no one who will do grassroots support for her candidacy. Her nomination would be the absolute best situation and choice for the Republicans while most people are just tired of having to stick up for the Clintons. If she gets the nomination, they may have to outsource grassroots support from Punjab.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. We needed enthusiastic volunteer involvement in 2002 also and lacked it

The author focuses on 1992, 1994, and 2006; but ignores 1996, , 1998, 2000 and 2002. In 1992 Democrats had just suffered through 8 years of Reagan as President followed by George Bush Senior for another four. Reagan got our blood boiling, and losing in 1988 hurt badly. Democrats were highly motivated in 1992 to regain the White House. I don't think all of the let down in 1994 can be placed at the foot of Bill Clinton. For a decade prior the Republican base in general had been more fired up, and more organized, than Democrats.

Bill Clinton won decisively in 1996 and Democrats did well in the Congressional elections of 1998 - partially because so many people were disgusted with the Republican Congress impeaching Clinton.

I think our difficulty mobilizing enough enthusiasm in 2000, but even more telling in the 2002 Congressional elections where we got pounded, points to a different set of conclusions. It took the growth of the internet as an alternative organizing tool plus the Iraq War to fire up a new wave of Democratic grassroots activists on behalf of the national Democratic Party. Before that the most reliable Democratic shock troops were the Unions, which have been losing political influence in America for generations, and African Americans who in fact Bill Clinton did manage to fire up to a real extent. This analysis of 1994 is two dimensional.

[neutron]

9. Er

Bill was a pretty good president.
He got people off welfare, and balanced the budget.

Maybe you could point to a better post Kennedy president?

Sounds like you're from Edwards or Obama camp.

A little advice: Instead of attacking a fine candidate, why don't you
concentrate on what you can offer.

Even though you have next to no experience and your name is "Hussein"
you still might have a chance if you stop going negative on good people

Hey, and Edwards - tell your henchmen to stop the gender slurs.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Wow.

Ok.

[neutron]

11. You also pasted your BS

into daily kos.

Eau de Obama/Edwards

[blm]

12. I couldn't believe that IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate were swept under the rug after those

investigations helped to put Clinton in office in the first place.

Imagine if we had a Dem president who would have allowed those revelations to be made public. No Bush would ever have been allowed even NEAR the WH ever again.

No 9-11.

No Iraq war.