The Clinton Cycle

Here's the full-length version of Ari Berman's "Hillary, Inc." taking a good hard look at Senator Clinton's team of business-oriented advisors. Matt Stoller piles on further and adds "I hope that someone organizes a PAC or 527 against her brand of centrism, and points out the wild inconsistencies from the left." But now here's the rub. It's hard to make hay about, say, the Clinton campaign's ties to union-busting when large labor unions won't do it.

As best I can tell, most labor people would prefer that she not be the nominee, but they're not going to do much of anything about it. They think, after all, that if she wins she'll need to be at least somewhat attentive to their concerns, but that if they tilt against her and she wins anyway, then they'll really be fucked. All of which is probably true, but of course also makes it much more likely that she'll win. Nation writers and progressive bloggers, sad to say, can't communicate this kind of thing to working-class voters in a particularly effective manner.

Comments

They think, after all, that if she wins she'll need to be at least somewhat attentive to their concerns, but that if they tilt against her and she wins anyway, then they'll really be fucked.

And that is exactly the dynamic that is in play.

It will be interesting to see which unions back which candidates, and more importantly when... How many weeks before Iowa and NH will unions be in play?

Posted by sdh | May 18, 2007 1:43 PM

And that's why I was so happy to see Obama beat her in Q1 fundraising for the primary. We need more things like that. If she gets completely knocked off the front-runner's pedestal, it's hard to see how she maintains her clout with nervous Democratic interest groups like the unions and recovers.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 18, 2007 1:47 PM

They think, after all, that if she wins she'll need to be at least somewhat attentive to their concerns, but that if they tilt against her and she wins anyway, then they'll really be fucked.

So, the labor unions back someone else for the nomination, Senator Clinton wins anyway, and as President proceeds to fuck over labor unions. How is that different from the outcome where labor unions help elect her, and she fucks them over anyway because she's in the pocket of big business? The only difference I see is that in the first case, she might not win the nomination. She's going to shit all over organized labor if she's President no matter what they do. Maybe, just maybe, it might be good to fight for someone who isn't already committed to such shitting.

Posted by mds | May 18, 2007 3:27 PM

If the Iraqi insurgents defeat the U.S. then every bad guy on earth will study and learn their techniques.

I haven't read Brooks article, so his quote may be taken out of context.

However, the short answer to this sentence is that the bad guys have already been so impressed by the Iraqi insurgency that they are now studying and copying it anyway. See. e.g., how the Taliban now are adopting Iraqi insurgent tactics.

So Brooks' point is apparently moot.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | May 18, 2007 3:44 PM

Posted by mds:
"The only difference I see is that in the first case, she might not win the nomination. She's going to shit all over organized labor if she's President no matter what they do. Maybe, just maybe, it might be good to fight for someone who isn't already committed to such shitting."

And if organized laber attacks its enemies, then people who are on the fence have a reason to be cautious. If organized labor helps its enemies, and then lays itself down on the altar after handing its enemies the knife, why shouldn't people sh*t on them? There's no cost.

Posted by Barry | May 18, 2007 3:56 PM

Then how do the bloggers and progressive magazines go about communicating effectively. and how does this information make it to the msm which most voters watch and get their info from.
To have Hillary voted in because information is not getting to them is a depressing thought. Hillary is a depressing thought.
Maybe you bloggers should discuss how better information about Hillary make it out and how to make the mainstream quit airing their cheerleading propaganda.

Posted by vwcat | May 18, 2007 11:36 PM

As best I can tell, most labor people would prefer that she not be the nominee...

All-knowing? Omnipotent? Please.

Posted by JoeCHI | May 19, 2007 4:02 PM

Isn't the situation somewhat parallel to that of the religious right and Giuliani/McCain/Romney? They (the "theocons") don't like the major candidates, they know that the candidates don't like them but they grumble enough about acting as a roadblock to make McCain give commencement speeches at Liberty U, Giuliani to talk about "hating abortion" and stumping for Ralph Reed and Romney to change pretty much every position he's ever held in order to not offend them.

The unions on the other hand are acting as if they are afraid of Hillary and DLC-ism instead of declaring that HRC better start acting and talking like a Democrat or else she'll have reason to worry about the unions in Iowa and Nevada.

If worst came to worst and Hillary wins the nomination against the opposition of the unions there is still always the need to keep the unions happy and on the inside of the tent. Hillary won't be more anti-union because of who they support in Iowa, she'll be as anti-union as she thinks is practical for her purposes.

They wey the unions are acting now though, they've lost the game before it's even begun.

Posted by Oscar | May 22, 2007 8:20 AM