OT (sort of): Hillary Clinton has just about NO netroots support

[beachmom]

On DailyKos anyway.

This diary is stupid, and full of errors (and I'm still mad about DelawareDem's diary yesterday -- I hate these Open Letter to Senator X diaries that are always arrogant and know-it-all):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/10/144355/366#c54

Guess who had to defend her? Me!!! Only because errors and lies, no matter who they're aimed at really do irk me. And also I said I would in my Cautionary Tale diary.

Tigercourse and Allegre are apparently defending her, too, but they didn't even know about her IWR admission. Why the heck do I know more about their candidate than them? Pathetic is what her netroots strategy is. If she doesn't HAVE netroots support, I would have thought she'd BUY it. "She's unstoppable?" I don't think so. I'm seeing real vulnerablities here. I would have thought that by now she'd have at least a skeleton crew set up over there. Still, very slim, and not particularly good. Edwards and Obama have formidable netroots support. Gore would, too, if he ran. I don't think blogs are everything but given the race in Virginia for which bloggers played a pivotal role, I just don't think you can win without some semblance of netroots support, who play opinion leaders both nationally and locally.

[Firespirit]

1. It's a matter of arrogance, I think

I believe that Hillary wants to completely bypass the grassroots of the party. Vilsack is almost certainly only in the running because the Clintonites want him to take Iowa out of contention for her. She's counting on Vilsack taking Iowa out of the picture and Edwards taking South Carolina out of the picture. I don't know what she has in mind for New Hampshire and Nevada, but her strategy seems based upon marginalizing the early primaries and focusing on the big-money states and Super Tuesday. Basically, buying the nomination and giving a big "F You" to the traditional Democratic grassroots.

Her campaign's attitude towards blogs is no different. There is NO WAY they cannot know how poorly she is regarded, but they have done next to nothing about it. Contrast that with her proxies' smear jobs of Dean and Kerry.

[rox63]

2. The people of New Hampshire will not look kindly on this...

They like their retail politics up close and personal. The candidates MUST come to their church spaghetti supper (or high school auditorium or local fire station - add the community meeting place of your choice here) or they will not give them the time of day.

[sandnsea]

3. That's a mealy-mouthed IWR statement

If Iraq didn't have WMD, there wouldn't have been a vote. Well duh Hillary. Completely misses the point.

THIS is why nobody is holding Bush accountable for LYING. She refuses to make that an issue because she believes she has to be a hawk in order to be President. She won't say she was lied to because she was one of the ones doing the lying.

I like what Matthews just said about her... "Where's Waldo?" Hillary continues to sidestep taking any stance on this war because she's afraid of being labeled a dove. That's also why she'll stay away from the netroots. She doesn't get anything at all.

[ProSense]

4. Oh read this.

I posted it in another thread, but it illustrates her tactic. Here on Iraq:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usclin0110,0,4928122.story?track=rss

[Mass]

5. Interesting article on the defaults of the main candidates

(understand not Kerry)

In a nutshell: McCain is too old, Clinton is Bill's wife, Romney if from MA, Guliani is also from the NE, Obama is too inexperienced, ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16564949/

....
As for Edwards, the heel he'll have to overcome is the one of authenticity. Edwards, both in '04 and now, says things that a lot of voters want to hear. But how will voters know this is the "real" Edwards and not the one that was trained as a trial lawyer and therefore comfortable making any argument well? Edwards has gone through a subtle political transformation, one that is actually understandable and believable. But his authenticity will be questioned (why did he support the war in the first place, why did he support such-and-such agreement when he was in the Senate... etc.). There's no silver bullet to "prove" to voters that one is "authentic;" they just have to be won over with time.

It seems that early on, Edwards realizes this may be an issue. It may explain everything from his unorthodox pick of David Bonior -- never one for showing off strategic skills, who seems much more of a "message" pick than a "strategy" pick (and I mean that as a compliment) -- to the Web-based reality series on Edwards' campaign. This could help, but he's got a long way to go.

I do not agree with everything in this article, but the media framing has already started very hard.

[wisteria]

6. He mentioned only the candidates the media has created a buzz about.

So, I will ignore that fact Kerry isn't mentioned other than being a Mass. ghost that will haunt Romney.
interesting mention of Clinton using the idea of promoting the "woman's touch" in the White House because I heard Clinton mention something along this very line at a book signing. She said, she thought it was time we had a "mom" in the White House. Now I just about fell over when I heard that, thinking it was not the best way to "sell" a commander in chief. Oh, and does Clinton really come off as "mom"?