Netroots and Endorsements

This issue was getting discussed in comments over here the other day, and now Chris Bowers has an insightful post on the changeover from the 2003-04 primary season when activist bloggers were all endorsing candidates and the 2007-08 season where neutrality rules the day.

I would add, though, that the issue differentiation between Howard Dean on the one hand, and Lieberman/Kerry/Edwards/Gephardt on the other over Iraq was an unusual situation that has no real parallel in the current primary. The candidates are all presenting themselves as wanting to end the war in Iraq and achieve universal health insurance and curb global warming, and essentially arguing over who is best-equipped to instantiate a fundamentally common vision for the country.

Comments

It's certainly true that there's less of a difference in how the candidates are presenting themselves, but quite a difference in the policies they are presenting. Clinton doesn't even have a UHC plan, and Obama has a plan that he claims is universal but actually leaves people out. Ditto for tackling global warming and ending the war in Iraq.

Posted by Clark | July 21, 2007 3:01 PM

My point is that your reasoning seems to apply more to the general public, not to the bloggers who should know better. Instead, bloggers aren't choosing a favorite, while the general public is. Both are subject to change, of course.

Posted by Clark | July 21, 2007 4:14 PM

With respect to Clark - those things are more the purview of congress sending the legislation up to the WH - choosing between these folks is like choosing whether your perfect summer afternoon is 78º or 80º. (Hillary, however, does have some heavy storm clouds undeservedly stuck to her!)

Posted by lutton | July 21, 2007 4:35 PM

If the president isn't publicly out front on any of those issues, they won't make it through Congress. And Iraq lies more on the shoulders of the president than Congress. If a President Clinton says we need to keep a residual force in Iraq for stabilization and counterterrorism, do you think that a Democratic Congress is going to try and stop her?

Posted by Clark | July 21, 2007 4:50 PM

Actually, a major issue is what will the candidates want to do about IRAN.

Hillary's major backers --like Haim Saban -- seem to be pushing for a pullout from Iraq (which is no longer a threat to Israel) as a necessary PRECONDITION for a Preemptive attack on Iran.

See,e.g, Saban's Dec 2006 interview with Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html

Posted by Don Williams | July 21, 2007 5:44 PM

Hillary certainly got Haim Saban's message -- that $1 Million may have helped.

From Feb 2007 http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php

------------
"NEW YORK: Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

Clinton spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Some 1,700 supporters applauded as she cited her efforts on behalf of the Jewish state and spoke scathingly of Iran's decision to hold a conference last month that questioned whether the Holocaust took place. "

Posted by Don Williams | July 21, 2007 5:51 PM

Matthew Yglesias wrote:

"The candidates are all presenting themselves as wanting to end the war in Iraq and achieve universal health insurance and curb global warming, and essentially arguing over who is best-equipped to instantiate a fundamentally common vision for the country."

...and bloggers can't possibly get beyond the manner in which the candidates are presenting themselves to ask the question of whose presentation is believable?

I'd say the candidate Y getting most of his/her money from industry X, is not too believable presenting his/herself as a potential reformer of industry X. Readers are left to fill in various possibilities for X and Y.

Anyway, some of the candidates are definitely not talking about achieving universal health insurance, per se, but have other plans, such as a single-payer system (Kucinich) and vouchers to be used at provider of one's choice (Gravel), which would take the profit stream away from private corporations.

Posted by heatkernel | July 21, 2007 6:01 PM

"I would add, though, that the issue differentiation between Howard Dean on the one hand, and Lieberman/Kerry/Edwards/Gephardt on the other over Iraq was an unusual situation that has no real parallel in the current primary."

Of course, the crucial lack of netroots neutrality in '04 wasn't between Dean and on the one hand, and Lieberman/Kerry/Edwards/Gephardt on the other hand over Iraq.

It was between Dean and Clark.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2007 10:36 PM

And as always, Bowers may be as dumb as a suitcase full of rocks, but that post and his attempts to understand things in the comments prove that, as always, he's the only guy in the Netroots Industrial Complex with aspirations to intellectual honesty.

Posted by Petey | July 21, 2007 10:53 PM

The lack of much effort on the part of major Dem bloggers to distinguish among the candidates on policiies can be explained by increased 'respectability' between now and last go-round, an unwillingness to sow division or court unpopularity, and an unwillingness in particular to make enemies with the staffers and supporters of the probable nominee. Which means they're resigned to the probable nominee.

Blech.

Posted by Nell | July 22, 2007 2:25 PM

I don't keep up with many of the liberal bloggers any more -- too busy working on progressive campaigns -- but it does seem that among people who comment on blogs and elsewhere, 2 things are fairly obvious:

(1) a huge number of discerning progressive activists want Gore to enter the race.

(2) among group (1) Edwards is the clear default favorite -- witness the MoveOn poll results on the candidates' environmental bona fides -- for being bold, thoughtful and honest in his message and positions.

The other 2 frontrunners, both DLCers by vote record and temperament, are so busy being cautious and conciliatory and avoiding anything that might upset their corporate sponsors, that they end up saying nothing at all. In these desperate times that does not play well among well-informed activists.

For my part I hope the disastrous era of the DLC Dems is nearing its conclusion. If Edwards manages to avoid the media assassination that did in Dean and pulls out the early primary wins he needs (or if Gore, the sure winner, enters the race), I'll finally start to breathe easy again about the future of the real Democratic party, and of our nation.

Posted by Jeannie | July 22, 2007 4:56 PM