What Does It Mean When Kos Accepts Clinton
"We may decide she's not our first choice, but she's not a bad choice." - Markos Moulitsas, August 4, 2007
It was a surprising thing for Markos, the founder of DailyKos the most widely read political blog, to say. He made that statement just before the candidate forum at YearlyKos in Chicago where Hillary Clinton gave her take on lobbyists. First, by insisting that the money she takes from them doesn't effect her vote- which is the equivalent of saying voters are stupid. And then by defending lobbyists- "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like or not, represent real Americans," she said. "They represent nurses, social workers and, yes, they represent corporations and they employ a lot of people."
OK. Hillary Clinton is the Democrat for lobbyists. At least we know where she stands on that one.
She's also the Democrat who blames the failure in Iraq on the Iraqis, stating that our troops did their job but the Iraqis didn't take advantage of what we had done for them. As if the situation in Iraq can be blamed on anyone other than the people that got us into this war.
I realize Hillary has changed her position significantly on Iraq, if not on the Iraqis. She finally regrets her vote for war (yes, it was a vote for war). But the Netroots is supposed to be about standing for something. This movement, this rejection of politics as usual, rejection of politics by the corporations for the corporations, is supposed to be about something. I recognize we're about healthcare and we're about not being George Bush, and we're about the environment and a woman's right to choose. But we don't need a movement for those things. The Democrats already had the DLC for those positions. The Netroots, the new activists, came from a rejection of Democratic triangulation. Progressives were tired of being talked down to and taken for granted and tired of the way business is done in Washington, namely, by business, and the lobbying groups bought and paid for by business.
I also recognize that Markos is not suddenly supporting Clinton, just saying the Netroots might come around to her. He wrote a strong post criticizing Hillary as recently as October 8.
A prominent blogger once told me that the Netroots was immune to flattery. He was either lying to me or he was lying to himself. Nobody is immune to flattery. It's not a bad thing when Hillary Clinton shows up at a blogger candidate forum, but it doesn't mean that much. Especially if she's going to stand on stage and defend lobbyists.
As Hillary solidifies her lead (though it's a long way from over, remember Howard Dean at this time in 2003) leaders of the Netroots are beginning to position themselves not as for Hillary, but as not against Hillary. Back in February Hillary seemed an unacceptable candidate for Markos. Now, some bloggers, worry perhaps that a Hillary victory will leave the Netroots powerless. Others, like Markos, might just believe it's important to support the Democrat, whoever she is. I've met Markos. He's a nice guy with a lot of integrity. He's also a Democrat to the core and is likely to strongly support whoever wins the nomination. But Hillary is a bad choice. The primaries aren't over and there's no reason to move in that direction.
The other day Patrick Buchanan stated that "A Giuliani victory means right retains power but loses its soul." Progressives need to recognize the same thing about Hillary Clinton.
Follow Stephen Elliott on Twitter: www.twitter.com/the_rumpus
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Pray for an open convention or work like hell to get Gore on the primary ballot in your state. With the progressive vote as split as it is now the only candidate presently in the race that can go to the convention with it already locked up is Hill. Either we get another candidate, (Al) that can win the primaries and the general, or we hope that Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, et all, get enough delegates among them to prevent a first vote victory for Hill, and that then the delegates decide on the candidate that they want and that can and will win the general election (probably not Hill). For us progressive Dems we have a few busy months ahead of us if we are to get anyone other than Hill, and it doesn't mean just talking to each other on the net or in meetings but getting out to the rest of the primary voters. The Hillary machine will not slip up (or get messed up by the media) the way Howard "did" (was). Those supporting other candidates must realize this and work to earn every vote possible the hard way - person to person.
Ken Arnold, I like Al Gore but he's a globalist, just like the Clintons. He's pro-NAFTA, and is in favor of worldwide treaties meant to eventually lead to one World Government, and it WON'T be Democratic. Go to the CFR website and read his stuff. They took his name off the list of CFR members in Wikipedia, but as of two years ago (2005) he was in the nosebleed section with Rockefeller.
Don't go there. Let him save the environment instead; it's what he probably prefers because if he joins the race it will only be under duress. Just look at his face! Not a happy camper about the prospect of another campaign, no siree.
It means that they are on the take. They have accept part of the rotten Clinton loot and are no longer credible. KOS has lost its marbles.
Moulitsos has argued that the blogs are a part of the MSM. He doesn't like to be excluded from coming under that umbrella and prefers "traditional media" for the others who are not blogs. I think he has sold out.
I think you are right on that.
Kos is a realist. What do you mean he "might just believe it's important" to support the Dem candidate. Have you read his book? He's an avowed partisan; he's even made posts recently tempering the criticism of Bob Kerrey, when it looked like he might run for Hagel's vacant seat. His entire point in those posts was that Kerrey, while not ideal by any stretch, was better than any Republican you could find. He makes the same point about Hillary.
If you could get over your talking points about Hillary's views about lobbyists (hell, at least she ADMITS the truth that they influence politics), you'd realize that the same points obtain about her.
I'm not defending Kos, or endorsing Hillary. She's not my favorite candidate (right now, it's probably Dodd). But I will support her with bells on if/when she wins the nomination, because the alternatives are just too ghastly to imagine. Hillary may be a lot of things, but she isn't ghastly.
Isn't being a realist is what democracy all about? Not getting what you want but settling for a reasonable facsimile thereof.
I'm curious, does anyone who supports Hillary or Obama think we'll see either taking this stand to bring back our middle class?
*This* is what democrats *used* to stand for in large part, and apparently only Edwards (limiting ourselves to The Big 3 candidates) gets it:
blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/26/edwards-gets-tough-on-business/trackback/
Yeah. Obama. Hill is corporatist - like Bush's "the haves and the have mores".
She isn't just a bad choice, she's their choice.
KOS has lost his marbles if he truly tolerates her, and wasn't just being polite.
Repercussions against the netroots?
Ha! I dare them to try.
They think we're influential now?... wait until they try to poke this hornets nest with sticks. They created a monster, and we will run amok.
We are actually quite fortunate to have several electable candidates to choose from at this time. It is frustrating to hear liberals and progressives talking about the inevitability of Clinton, or comparing a vote in the primaries for someone other than Clinton as comparable to a vote for Ralph Nader in the general election(!).
Both stances are illogical, incorrect and in denial of candidates who are willing to oppose the BushCo swindle. Right now, Dodd looks like the right choice in my estimation, others rightly believe there's good reason to continue backing Obama, Edwards and Richardson. It's much too early to just give up and resign ourselves to a Clinton candidacy.
Oh the sanctimonious netroots crowd. I suppose that a majority of them supported Nader in 2000. Don't be fooled by their holier-than-thou rhetoric. For the democratic party to succeed it needs to occupy the mighty middle of the political spectrum. Netrots erroneously believe that revolution is right around the corner- it isn't.
Incremental change over a long period of time has a better chance of improving our society than angry pouting about how bad things are and how likely they are to get worse if the left-most candidate is not elected.
But the "middle ground" is to the LEFT of the democrats now! It has to be put in the context of this incredibly right wing administration.
Going half way toward such radical positions is not moderate in any real sense, especially when you have a majority of Americans disagreeing with this war. Polls also show most Americans have a more progressive attitude on MANY issues, ranging from abortion rights to increased taxes for universal healthcare to "free trade".
All things in moderation, *including* moderation.
PS---There's nothing moderate about Hillary receiving more money from the healthcare industry than any other candidate, including the republicans.
How about she displays more moderation when positioning herself to represent special interests over *our* interests?
theyoungturks.com
I don't follow the polls all that closely.
My sense is that Americans have not suddenly moved as far to the left as you presume.
Most of us do not approve of Bush and most of us want improved health care. There are many stakeholders in our society- some who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo- others desire rapid change.
It is probably cliche to say that we need a pragmatist in the White House- but that is indeed what we need. Someone with the good judgment to differentiate the possible from the unattainable ideal.
The netroots crowd will try to pressure centrist democrats like Obama to espouse positions that would make him unelectable.
It is imperative for the Dems to win in 08- with or without a "pure soul."
Neither the Republican nor Democratic parties deserve to succeed. This might just be the year a third party candidate actually wins.
i must admit i cringe almost whenever Hillary's name is repeated----always in my mind, a reminder of Geraldine Ferraro. i remain hopeful H. doesn't get nominated but if she does we'll hear way in the background, the order---"release the hounds.'
What? Much of MSM sold their souls years ago, so you're surprised that Kos crossed over to the darkside? Kos maybe the first bigtime political blog to join the establishment MSM, but won't be the last.
The temptation of the chance to join the "in-crowd" of the well-connected celebrity-journalists corps can be powerful indeed.
What is the Clinton's relationship with Bush Sr and family? They vacation together, best buds.
That would make all of the American presidents since Raygun ,
4 presidents,
20 years of
just 2 closely knit families!
That ALONE is enough to vote against Hillary. No hereditary monarchy for the USA!
If you want a president who believes in the things you do then it's Kucinich then Gravel, and definitely NOT HRC.
http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php
how many times a day do you post this comment?
Kos does not speak for the community. There is little love for Hillary at DailyKos, and many of us have made it clear we cannot support a candidate who would reject 50 years of bipartisan support of containment for Bush's intervention, and who will allow the medical profiteers to write our insurance policy. Hillary is simply unacceptable to many of us, and if Al Gore does not step in to stop her, we'll sit this one out, voting for protest candidates.
I think it means, given the choice between Hillary Clinton and the seven Republican Dwarves, while she's no Snow White, there is no choice, except for netroots to swallow hard and hold her feet to the fire from moment one.
That's the same thing the netroots said they would do the Dem Congress. George Bush is still getting everything he wants and the Dem Congress is laughing at the netroots.
Perhaps KOS was making that radical and very rare act for Dems of making a call for unity.
Usually we wait until we've chosen a nominee to call for unity. Works better that way.
"Unit"y in KOS language=capitulating to fear of retribution from the almighty Clintons.
Of course she's a bad choice. Not the worst choice, we have Giuliani, and it was a stretch to find a slate of Republicans who could make her look good, wasn't it? Compared to Bush, who is an insane moron, she would be an improvement, sure - the same kind of improvement Bill was over his best buddy Bush I - the kind of improvement who can push through neocon programs that Bush I could NEVER have pulled off, because he was able to talk like a progressive while he was keeping the military in business, gutting the environment, "reforming" welfare - Hillary doesn't even talk the talk, Kos. She's out. She's a sabre-rattling hawk. Her chief adviser is Mark Penn, whose firm represents Blackwater. What's wrong with this picture? There's plenty of time to hop on the DLC corporate-friendly bandwagon when Hillary's friends the military industry, big pharma, big insurance, big banking, big media, Rupert Murdoch, and the Bush crime family make sure she has the Democratic nomination, so no matter who wins, the military/corporate power structure is in friendly hands. Why would you help her now?
It isn't too late to come out in favor of a government that isn't corporate-owned, is it? - surely you can find the guts to do that much?
rbrooks,you forgot one of her biggest and best friend,AIPAC.
Real War is coming;it's in the air.
Stephen
I'm a NH progressive and take issue with you about Hillary Clinton
I'm only speaking for myself, but here in New Hampshire I endorsed Hillary Clinton because she is my first choice.
To me she isn't an "electable" second choice to anyone. In other words I haven't done a "Kos"
I spent a lot of time making that decision and you can read why I did it at my "off the bus" blog.
I hope that progressives can finally take an objective look at Hillary Clinton. I get a lot of back channel e mails and the level of angst is overheated verging on irrational
I've read some interesting articles recently about how for the first time in a very long time, it's the democrats, not the republicans, who are getting the funding from most of the big-business community.
How can we trust such a blatantly special interest funded candidate to put *our* interests ahead of those other interests?
Don't get me wrong, I realize that until we have publicly funded elections this will be a problem for pretty much ANY candidate that has potential to be elected in our current system.
But I also realize that it's a matter of degree, and all else being equal, I'd prefer a candidate who not only has solid ideas, but also hasn't taken THAT much special interest money, relatively speaking.
Don't get me wrong, I won't vote for a candidate that gets $10 in campaign donations either (no chance of winning, and that's a factor).
But if this funding trend holds for the democrats I can only expect the party will continue trending to the right on the economy, trade and things like media consolidation (hello NAFTA, GATT and FCC Telecom Act of 1996 all over again).
PS---I'll tell you what. If Hillary proposes something HALF as good as what Edwards is now proposing with regard to business, I'll have to reconsider my position. Until then...
blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/26/edwards-gets-tough-on-business/trackback/
So, what about that DLC gang?
"Business as Usual" is the reason this Independent could not vote for Hillary.
If they shut down the DLC and acknowledge that the DNC is the PEOPLE'S PARTY, then, maybe I'll take a gander.
Otherwise, to believe there will be a change of course of this country, you have GOT to be delusional.
Anyhoo - the next 4 years are going to be Elephant turd pickup-sticks - they left those damn things everywhere...absolutely everywhere.
Why ANYone wants to the the next "pooper scooper" is beyond me.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
