The Clinton argument "stripped to its essence".....by a fairly neutral observer. [View all]

[madfloridian]

From the Las Vegas Review Journal:

Calling a foul in Clinton-Sanders primary fight

Stripped to its essence, the Clinton argument is akin to Sanders coming across a person driving a broken down Vespa scooter. "Here, let me get you into a reliable car," Sanders offers. But the Clintons counter: "Look! He's trying to take away your scooter!"

It's technically accurate, but practically false. And that's an awful campaign slogan.

Not only that, Clinton knows better. She was attacked in 2008 in fliers distributed by the campaign of then-Sen. Barack Obama on the issue of universal health care, prompting her infamous news conference scold, "Shame on you, Barack Obama!"

But before saying that, Clinton asked a compelling question: What purpose does it serve for Democrats — who all believe in the concept of universal health care — to criticize one another over the precise details of how that idea is achieved? Or, to quote Past Clinton, "Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care? I thought we were trying to realize Harry Truman's dream."

Well, apparently since polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show Sanders treading close behind — and in some cases, ahead of — Clinton.

I don't think there was any real awareness among the party leaders, including the Clintons, of the shifting of power from the party establishment to the activists.

I would not feel so strongly about this except for the fact that the Democratic Party allowed a think tank to take over and run those out who were the traditional members of the party. It was done deliberately and for financial purposes.

This article was written about a year after the Dean campaign brought the rise of the "netroots", and there was a way that the people of the party could actually make their voices heard.

From an article by Matt Bai in October 2005 edition of the New York Times

Some were recognizing back then what the next battle would be.

What Dean's candidacy brought into the open, however, was another kind of growing and powerful tension in Democratic politics that had little to do with ideology. Activists often describe this divide as being between "insiders" and "outsiders," but the best description I've heard came from Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic operative who runs the advocacy group N.D.N. (formerly New Democrat Network), which sprang from Clintonian centrism of the early 1990's. As Rosenberg explained it, the party is currently riven between its "governing class" and its "activist class." The former includes the establishment types who populate Washington -- politicians, interest groups, consultants and policy makers. The second comprises "Net roots" Democrats on the local level; that is, grass-roots Democrats, many of whom were inspired by Dean and who connect to politics primarily online, through blogs or Web-based activist groups like MoveOn.org. The argument between the camps isn't about policy so much as about tactics, and a lot of Democrats in Washington don't even seem to know it's happening.

It's about policy now for sure.

Bai points out that it was not really clear that the Clintons were understanding this.

Assuming that Clinton is serious about a 2008 campaign, it's never too early to begin redefining her image in the minds of independent and conservative voters. And the thinking among her closest advisers holds that unlike other prospective candidates with conservative leanings, like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana or Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, Clinton doesn't have to worry about winning over more liberal base voters; she's an icon of the left, and short of climbing into a tank and invading a country all by herself, she couldn't do much to change that. By this theory, Clinton gets to have it both ways: her consistent centrist record will convince general-election voters that she is not the archetype they thought she was, and Democratic-primary voters will forgive her more conservative positions because, in their minds, she is saying such things only to make herself "electable." It's a strategy so elegant that even Karl Rove would have to smile in appreciation.

The only peril in this formulation is that it assumes, reasonably enough, that Clinton and her advisers have a firm grasp of the fissures and alliances that are now beginning to change the party's traditional landscape. And it's not clear that they do.

There have been huge economic changes in the nation and also in the minds of the people who are living in these times of such great inequality. I don't think the DNC was ready or willing for these changes, and I don't believe the Clintons really understand yet.

I am not sure what is going to happen in the next few weeks and months. But the activist voices are getting louder.

Those voices are not going away.