 | ||
 | Dems seize on draft of Iraq report | |
| Playbook: 'This electability thing' | |
| Edwards gets two big union labels | |
| It's not the bounce, it's the fizzle | |
| Readers: What Sen. Craig should have done | |
| New Carolinas Poll | |
| The Michigan Omen? | |
| Craig Resigns | |
| Fur Already Flying In Old Dominion | |
| Warner Retires, Battle To Replace Him Begins |
| U.S.-India Relations Friendlier but Still Cool | |
| Where's the Netroots' Outrage at Hillary? | |
| Labor's Impact on 2008 | |
| Republican Melancholy | |
| Surge Politics |
|
September 03, 2007
Where's the Netroots' Outrage at Hillary?
By Blake D. DvorakWhen Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) returned from Iraq last month expressing confidence in the administration's "surge" policy, the leftwing blogosphere pounced. MoveOn.org swiftly unleashed an ad campaign denouncing Baird, while the other day Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos wondered, "As for Baird, if there are any credible, hungry Democrats in that district looking for a promotion, now might not be a bad time to consider their options."
Bringing pressure to bear on Democratic politicians who depart from orthodoxy is of course one of the primary functions of the so-called netroots. Their performance record is mixed but their growing influence is not, as was made clear when every Democratic candidate except Joe Biden addressed the netroots at their YearlyKos convention in Chicago in early August.
So the campaign against Baird is of little surprise. As is the netroots' preference for candidates like Barack Obama and John Edwards, who have always been much more consistent in their anti-war stance than frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
Throughout the spring and early summer, the question was whether Clinton could appeal to the netroots, who demanded a full accounting of her 2002 Iraq vote and substantial action in the Senate to end the war. The latter they got, the former they haven't, and probably never will. Though Clinton never went as far as someone like Bill Richardson, she essentially assumed the same ground that Obama and Edwards were on.
Yet, since then, Clinton has made a number of equivocating statements on the war and the success of the surge that only a few months ago would have elicited a strong reaction from the netroots. But throughout the month of August the left's response was generally muted, at least compared to the intensity of a year ago.
Here's Moulitsas himself, writing in the Washington Post in May 2006:
"Afraid to offend she has limited her policy proposals to minor, symbolic issues ... She doesn't have a single memorable policy or legislative accomplishment to her name. Meanwhile, she remains behind the curve or downright incoherent on pressing issues such as the war in Iraq ... The last thing we need is yet another Democrat afraid to stand on principle."
Contrast that with Moulitsas' appearance on Meet the Press about a week after YearlyKos. Asked by host David Gregory about his 2006 Post column, Moulitsas demurred. The Clinton campaign, he said, is "making strides" with the netroots community and "giving this community proper respect." With a "mm-hmm" coming from Gregory, Moulitsas added, "You know, I could care less whether I like her or not."
Really, even when the Democratic Party frontrunner is saying things like, "We have begun to chance tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al-Anbar province, it's working"? Or, "If it is a possibility that Al Qaeda would stay in Iraq, I think we need to stay focused on trying to keep them on the run as we currently are doing in Anbar province"?
Of course, as a thousand netroots bloggers would remind us, these comments do not suggest that Clinton thinks the surge is working, as she has said quite definitively it is not, and don't rise to the betrayal of Mr. Baird.
For the record, hasn't she also said recently, "The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution to the situation. It has failed to do so"? And isn't her No.1 promise to the American people to "end the war in Iraq"?
Quite right. Clinton is still opposed to the surge and maintains her position that the war should end. But the reality in Clinton's comments that the leftwing blogosphere and anti-war activists would have been quick to point out just a few months ago is that Clinton is hedging her bets on Iraq. Using the left's criteria, isn't this the same ol' Clinton, who, as Moulitsas wrote, is "afraid to stand on principle"?
Let's be fair to Clinton for a second. As House Majority Whip James Clyburn has said, a successful report from Gen. David Petraeus in September would "be a problem for us." It's not unreasonable to assume, judging by her comments, that Clinton would want it to be as small a problem for her as possible. And so when instances of success are undeniable, such as progress in Anbar and elsewhere, Clinton doesn't see the sense in denying it.
Of course that's kind of what Baird said also, if a bit more definitive than Clinton has yet dared. For his honesty, MoveOn and Moulitsas want to unseat him. But where's the outrage campaign against Clinton? Are we to believe that Clinton's recent equivocating on Iraq is OK with them, that it's not a vast departure of the tune she was singing a few months ago? Are we to believe that all Clinton had to do to calm the netroots' anger was make a few "strides" and show "proper respect"?
Apparently, but then again Brian Baird isn't about to win back the White House. Maybe the netroots are learning that there's nothing wrong with a little political calculation.
