The MoveOn Thing

Since MoveOn endorsed Hillary Clinton's opponent, it's hardly surprising that Clinton has not-so-nice things to say about MoveOn. But the bad dynamic between Clinton and MoveOn is a reminder of one of the fundamental problems with her candidacy. The Clintons, and many of their key supporters, come out of a school of political analysis which holds that the problem with the Democratic Party in the United States is that progressive institutions are too strong. Only by curbing the influence of these institutions, the theory goes, can Democratic Party politicians engage in the tactical repositioning necessary to win elections.

Whether or not that was true in 1988-92 or, indeed, whether or not it remains true today, this is clearly not a long-term strategy for progressive politics. This "crush the left, move to the right" theory of electoral political may or may not work for politicians in the short run, but to create big change you need to strengthen progressive institutions and move the entire spectrum to the left.

Comments

"But the bad dynamic between Clinton and MoveOn is a reminder of one of the fundamental problems with her candidacy. The Clintons, and many of their key supporters, come out of a school of political analysis which holds that the problem with the Democratic Party in the United States is that progressive institutions are too strong."

Well, at least Matthew is consistent. MoveOn, an organization designed to amplify the voice of the donor class of the Democratic Party, is a progressive institution in Matthew's book, whether they're in favor of progressive policy goals or not.

You know you're dealing with a trust fund scumbag like Matthew Yglesias when someone tries to sell you on the donor class being the true progressives, even if they're supporting the candidate opposed to universal healthcare and weak on defending Social Security.

The donor class and the trust fund scumbags sure know how to defend their own interests. They've got a megaphone, and they're willing to lie through their bared teeth.

Posted by Petey | April 19, 2008 2:49 PM

MoveOn didn't oppose the war in Afghanistan. Although Parisier can annoy me sometimes, it's wrong for HRC to use right-wing talking points to describe MoveOn.

Posted by mike | April 19, 2008 2:49 PM

A post on the consequences of the Ayers Obama non-connection in the general are in order. This could be a big problem, given the proclivity of the media to focus on such things, and could prove to be worse than Willie Harton. No wonder, the loathsomes like Chris Matthews are already comparing Obama to Dukakis.

Posted by gregor | April 19, 2008 2:49 PM

It's also stunningly callous to disparage an organization whose raison de etre was to save her husband from a political witch hunt.

Generally, I think we should probably censure her and move on, but . . . hmm.

Posted by southpaw | April 19, 2008 2:51 PM

How progressive is it, Petey, to support universal health care atop a pyramid of Iraqi and American corpses?

Posted by Delicious Pundit | April 19, 2008 3:00 PM

I think there is something else going on here besides the typical sort of DLC preference for the center. There is a strong generational element involved.

Clinton has been positioning herself for some months now as the candidate of a mature, older silent majority: people who don't like all those loud, uppity young "activists"; people who vote in elections and go to town meetings, but do not otherwise like to get involved with activist causes, rallies, marches, petitions, etc. Starting in Iowa, the Clintons were very concerned about the dynamics of the caucus setting. They believe it disadvantages their base supporters: older women who allegedly feel intimidated in a public caucus setting by the younger, maler and more aggressive supporters of Obama. Yes, she is disparaging the left with these words. But she is mainly disparaging what her supporters see as a bunch of arrogant young punks who are "taking over" and supplanting her more experienced and entitled supporters.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 19, 2008 3:03 PM

Well, you bring libertarians like me into the coalition by moving to the right on economics but not on social issues. Then there's the Casey Democrats, whom you lure by moving to the right on social issues but not on economics.

To create big change, you need to persuade people who don't agree with you now to agree with you. What's your strategy? Shout louder? Crush us?

Posted by Creamy Goodness | April 19, 2008 3:03 PM

What happened to Petey? Is this the same one that used to write intelligent and persuasive posts when Edwards was still in the race?

I don't remember that Petey referring to people as "scumbags" or otherwise sounding unhinged. I mean sure, his postings were ubiquitous, or seemed that way, which suggests too much free time and the love of his own voice, but that would hardly make him unique in the blog-reading community. And his posts were informed and intelligent, assertive and combative, yes, but not obnoxious.

Again, what happened? Or am I misremembering?

Posted by Ryan S | April 19, 2008 3:03 PM

Whether or not that was true in 1988-92 or, indeed, whether or not it remains true today, this is clearly not a long-term strategy for progressive politics.

There is no long-term strategy for progressive politics as long as progressive politics continues to be inconsistent with the values and positions of the American people. If progressives are unwilling to change their values and positions to more closely align with those of their fellow citizens, they will continue to remain in the political wilderness.

Posted by Mixner | April 19, 2008 3:07 PM

Thanks a lot Petey, you make me feel dirty for having been an Edwards supporter. I can only hope that you aren't the same person. You used to talk about how this was going to be a transformative year, where progressives could really shift the paradigm, now you are a bitter Clintonite. The Clintons engage in class warfare alright, but they aren't on our side. Obama gave up a likely SUPREME COURT clerkship to be a community organizer in Chicago. No way is he not a progressive, and for what it's worth, sitting on a board with Ayers vs. sitting on Wal-Mart's board? I know my preference.

Posted by urbell | April 19, 2008 3:15 PM

This does point to something that has been uniquely bruising about this primary season -- one of the candidates is running against the other candidate's _supporters_. That is a fairly common move in a general election, at least by Republicans against Democrats. But there is something odd and almost uniquely destructive about saying not simply that he is not the right kind of candidate for our party, but that his supporters are not the right kind of people to be in a coalition with.

Posted by pjs | April 19, 2008 3:16 PM

What happened to Petey?

Nothing. Ever since his joke of a candidate finally went down in flames, he's just let down his guard is all, and now the real Petey is revealed in all its ugliness. Petey personifies a particularly obnoxious strain of progressive politics.

Posted by Mixner | April 19, 2008 3:17 PM

What happened to Petey?

I was wondering the same thing. I remember a lot of strong opinions, sardonic wit, and a fondness for the icy insult and no-holds-barred verbal grappling. But now I'm picturing Travis Bickle with a Matt Yglesias target poster on his wall, and "Evil Trust Fund Scumbag" written in blood across the top.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 19, 2008 3:19 PM

Clinton is commenting on the "activist base" in general as much as MoveOn specifically because she's talking about me, although I'm not a MoveOn member; I think their ads suck.

Anyway, here's Hillary:

And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them.

MATT! She reads your blog! And is much more savvy about the Dem base than petey.

Posted by Another Mike | April 19, 2008 3:21 PM

There is no long-term strategy for progressive politics as long as progressive politics continues to be inconsistent with the values and positions of the American people. If progressives are unwilling to change their values and positions to more closely align with those of their fellow citizens, they will continue to remain in the political wilderness.

Yeah! Progressives should push their progressive political agenda by becoming conservatives!

Posted by ML | April 19, 2008 3:22 PM

There's a weird trend in the comment threads lately:

1. Matt writes about the primary race, generally on a subject less than favorable to Hillary Clinton

2. Petey jumps in early in the thread and says something utterly outrageous and indefensible about Matt, usually involving a trust fund of which we have (so far as I know) no evidence.

3. Everyone else gets quite nostalgic for the good old days of Petey.

All of which serves to distract attention from the unfavorable news of the day about Hillary Clinton. In many ways, this makes Petey a highly effective surrogate. Without his intervention, I imagine this thread would be given over to a great deal of outrage about Hillary Clinton castigating three and a half million Americans who are committed to Democratic politics.

Posted by southpaw | April 19, 2008 3:28 PM

If progressives are unwilling to change their values and positions to more closely align with those of their fellow citizens, they will continue to remain in the political wilderness.

Details, please. I don't want to be in the political wilderness anymore. Exactly which of my values and positions do I need to change?

Posted by Kiril | April 19, 2008 3:34 PM

After she clarified her Mid East policy as Charles Krauthammer's wet dream, I'm having trouble understanding why this would surprise anyone.

Posted by 55 | April 19, 2008 3:34 PM

Count me as another who wonders what happened to Petey. I was with him on Edwards, but can't read his bile these days.

As far as, Was this necessary in the '88-'92 era? -- I vote yes. Just as a moderate conservative Nixon administration was as far right as America was ready to move after the failed Johnson administration, so, too, the nation was only ready for a halfway-house move to the left after Bush I's economic malaise. Nixon angered alot of true believers, with detente/EPA/affirmative action, just as Clinton angered liberals with welfare reform, but both improved their party's brand after a long time in the wilderness.

But that was then and this is now. Those who weren't around in 1980 may not believe how fearful centrist Repblicans were that Reagan was too far right to win -- that, despite Carter's clear failings, Dems might manage to hold onto the White House. The voters, however, did what they always do in the face of a failed administration -- voted to change parties -- and the fact that Reagan was the winning candidate changed America's political calculus dramatically for the first time since 1932.

I understand the feeling the Clintons have, that they found a successful formula and why would anyone want to change that? But it brings up the old aphorism, "Ideas attack insitutions, and then become institutions that are attacked by ideas". The Clintons, like Howard Baker or George HW Bush in 1980, are trying for a don't rock the boat/just a little change approach, in a year when, thanks to the Dems' improved reputation, demographic changes and the manifest debacle of Bush adminitration policy, a dramatic shift in a progressve direction is more possible than it's been in most of our lifetimes.

Posted by demtom | April 19, 2008 3:36 PM

Matthew summed up many of my problems with Hillary's entire campaign (and even some parts of Obama's campaign) with this post. Or really, Hillary summed up my problems with her statement. I guess I should thank her for elucidating my argument for me so succinctly: I am a progressive activist; Hillary doesn't like that. Hooray! The clouds have parted.

Posted by slag | April 19, 2008 3:37 PM

Count me as another who wonders what happened to Petey. I was with him on Edwards, but can't read his bile these days.

As far as, Was this necessary in the '88-'92 era? -- I vote yes. Just as a moderate conservative Nixon administration was as far right as America was ready to move after the failed Johnson administration, so, too, the nation was only ready for a halfway-house move to the left after Bush I's economic malaise. Nixon angered alot of true believers, with detente/EPA/affirmative action, just as Clinton angered liberals with welfare reform, but both improved their party's brand after a long time in the wilderness.

But that was then and this is now. Those who weren't around in 1980 may not believe how fearful centrist Repblicans were that Reagan was too far right to win -- that, despite Carter's clear failings, Dems might manage to hold onto the White House. The voters, however, did what they always do in the face of a failed administration -- voted to change parties -- and the fact that Reagan was the winning candidate changed America's political calculus dramatically for the first time since 1932.

I understand the feeling the Clintons have, that they found a successful formula and why would anyone want to change that? But it brings up the old aphorism, "Ideas attack insitutions, and then become institutions that are attacked by ideas". The Clintons, like Howard Baker or George HW Bush in 1980, are trying for a don't rock the boat/just a little change approach, in a year when, thanks to the Dems' improved reputation, demographic changes and the manifest debacle of Bush adminitration policy, a dramatic shift in a progressve direction is more possible than it's been in most of our lifetimes.

Posted by demtom | April 19, 2008 3:38 PM

Exactly which of my values and positions do I need to change?

The same ones you think I should change.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | April 19, 2008 3:38 PM

How progressive is it, Petey, to support universal health care atop a pyramid of Iraqi and American corpses?

This concedes too much. Even in the highy unlikely event that the candidate of Mark Penn pushes for uncompromising health care reform, the chances of it passing with the well-mobilized 55 conservative senators likely to come with a no-coattails Clinton win are zilch.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | April 19, 2008 3:40 PM

What happened to Petey?

He's jumped the shark so many times that he has now become the shark, I guess. Kinda sad, although I was never fond of his Edwards screeds either.

Clinton has been positioning herself for some months now as the candidate of a mature, older silent majority ... she is mainly disparaging what her supporters see as a bunch of arrogant young punks who are "taking over" and supplanting her more experienced and entitled supporters.

Exactly right, IMO-- I was talking to a friend about the 'silent majority' thing just this morning. The downside is what I suppose can't be said outright: this demographic has done a really pathetic job guiding the party, whether from a lack of motivation, ideological incoherence, or an inexplicable lack of comprehension regarding the right's strategy. I mean, Republicans use their time out of power wisely, building their institutions, aggressively opposing the Dems (to the point of sheer lunacy, as we've seen), and securing their base; old-time Dems apparently prefer to wring their hands about the poor ignorant swing voters and point accusing fingers at the base, while waiting passively for the GOP to implode. The young punks wouldn't be so pissed if their elders hadn't been so clearly determined to beat down anyone with a spine in the past few decades.

Posted by latts | April 19, 2008 3:44 PM

The shame of it is Hillary could have just redeemed herself back in, say, 2005 or 2006 if she had just emulated Edwards on the Iraq war and offered a full apology for Iraq (not just "wrong to trust Bush", but wrong to support a war that was clearly not a war of last resort) and made peace with the progressive movement. Then most every Dem would have been proud to line up behind Madam President.

Not now. This is just crazy.

Moreover, at this point if Hillary wins the nom, I couldn't blame MoveOn endorsing a third party or sit out of the GE.

Posted by Consumatopia | April 19, 2008 3:46 PM

> The shame of it is Hillary could have just
> redeemed herself back in, say, 2005 or 2006 if she
> had just emulated Edwards on the Iraq war and
> offered a full apology for Iraq (not just "wrong
> to trust Bush", but wrong to support a war that
> was clearly not a war of last resort) and made
> peace with the progressive movement.

I don't know how long it will take for the light to dawn and then sink in: /she doesn't think she was wrong on her vote for the Iraq war/. She _truly_ doesn't think she /was/ voting for war; she thinks her procedural process vote meant only what the plain words said, and that the intent behind Cheney/PNAC in getting that law passed mattered not a whit. She thinks she was right to work for Lieberman and she thinks the Lieberdem approach to making war on others is a good one.

Socially she is a little less right-wing, and I am sure any Supreme Court Justice she would appoint would be better than any from McCain. But other than that /Hillary Clinton is a country-club Republican/. She thinks that liberals and very much progressives need to be put and kept in their place by Republican-type boss/punisher figures.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | April 19, 2008 4:00 PM

RE: PETEY

Any trust fund Matt has is going to be small potatoes compared to the millions and millions in the fund that awaits the children of John Edwards.

And unlike Edwards, Matt never worked for a hedge fund. Much less one that was heavily into subprime loans.

Oh, imagine how dumb Peter must feel when he realizes what a rube he's been.

Here's a link to Edwards' hedge fund: The Fortress Investment Group, LLC. (And, oh, what's funnier than a trial lawyer that sells out to a LIMITED LIABILITY company? Imagine how naive and stupid Petey must feel.)

http://www.fortressinv.com/

Chelsea Clinton, of course, works for a hedge fund too.

And, yes, she's a much bigger trustfund baby that Matt will ever be.

Obama's the only Dem whose family has yet to sell out to high finance.

Whenever Petey rants about "scumbag" trustfund babies it's good to remind him that:

a) He's a rube

b) Edwards and Clinton both set their kids up with huge trust funds.

c) The money for their kids' trustfunds comes come hedge funds. In Edwards' case one that utterly disgraced itself by pushing subprime loans.

Posted by Petey's a gullible rube! Boo hoo hoo! Fortress Investment Group, LLC rocks! | April 19, 2008 4:01 PM

RE: PETEY

Any trust fund Matt has is going to be small potatoes compared to the millions and millions in the fund that awaits the children of John Edwards.

And unlike Edwards, Matt never worked for a hedge fund. Much less one that was heavily into subprime loans.

Oh, imagine how dumb Peter must feel when he realizes what a rube he's been.

Here's a link to Edwards' hedge fund: The Fortress Investment Group, LLC. (And, oh, what's funnier than a trial lawyer that sells out to a LIMITED LIABILITY company? Imagine how naive and stupid Petey must feel.)

http://www.fortressinv.com/

Chelsea Clinton, of course, works for a hedge fund too.

And, yes, she's a much bigger trustfund baby that Matt will ever be.

Obama's the only Dem whose family has yet to sell out to high finance.

Whenever Petey rants about "scumbag" trustfund babies it's good to remind him that:

a) He's a rube

b) Edwards and Clinton both set their kids up with huge trust funds.

c) The money for their kids' trustfunds comes come diry finance. In Edwards' case one that utterly disgraced itself by pushing subprime loans.

Posted by Petey's a gullible rube! Boo hoo hoo! Fortress Investment Group, LLC rocks! | April 19, 2008 4:02 PM

what happened to Petey
Petey is an onanistic contrarian. He's only happy when people are responding to his comments, so stop.

Posted by bjd | April 19, 2008 4:02 PM

The young punks wouldn't be so pissed if their elders hadn't been so clearly determined to beat down anyone with a spine in the past few decades.

Sounds like a good argument for More and Better Democrats to me!

Posted by slag | April 19, 2008 4:04 PM

"Only Nixon could go to China" suggests that, sometimes, you have to go right to move left.

Posted by ferd | April 19, 2008 4:16 PM

So maybe Clinton is positioning herself, a la Lieberman, for an independent run, if the Democrats reject her? Certainly lashing out at a powerful progressive organization she'll need if she snags the nomination isn't a smart move. Not that dissing entire states, etc is so smart. But I can see her claiming an Obama nomination doesn't have legitimacy (for all sorts of specious reasons), and therefore she launches an independent run. It'd make her good friend McCain happy. Far fetched (I hope!), but she does have a bitter (there's that word again) psychological makeup that's similar to Lieberman . . .

Posted by Philip Graham | April 19, 2008 4:17 PM

So maybe Clinton is positioning herself, a la Lieberman, for an independent run, if the Democrats reject her? Certainly lashing out at a powerful progressive organization she'll need if she snags the nomination isn't a smart move. Not that dissing entire states, etc is so smart. But I can see her claiming an Obama nomination doesn't have legitimacy (for all sorts of specious reasons), and therefore she launches an independent run. It'd make her good friend McCain happy. Far fetched (I hope!), but she does have a bitter (there's that word again) psychological makeup that's similar to Lieberman . . .

Posted by Philip Graham | April 19, 2008 4:19 PM

There is no long-term strategy for progressive politics as long as progressive politics continues to be inconsistent with the values and positions of the American people.

Honk if you love honking

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 19, 2008 4:31 PM

I don't know how long it will take for the light to dawn and then sink in: /she doesn't think she was wrong on her vote for the Iraq war/.

Of course, of course. But being unable to swallow her pride on this line of thinking has cost her the nation's highest office, and squandered the good will that many liberals felt towards the Clinton name. Because she couldn't humble herself a bit in '05, 06, or 07, she's going to be deeply humbled in '08.

Posted by Consumatopia | April 19, 2008 5:26 PM

To create big change, you need to persuade people who don't agree with you now to agree with you. What's your strategy? Shout louder? Crush us?

Posted by Creamy Goodness | April 19, 2008 3:03 PM

Love to crush ya, baby, but in truth Libertarians are so few that we'll just ignore you.

Posted by John Emerson | April 19, 2008 5:35 PM

Consumatopia, Hillary wouldn't have had to just swallow her pride on the point. She would have actually had to change her mind, or perhaps just lie about changing her mind. It isn't a lack of humility that's a problem if you really think you're right on the merits -- except in the sense that with a little more humility she might have re-thought those merits.

Posted by AlanC9 | April 19, 2008 5:56 PM

“Screw ‘em,” Hillary Clinton told her husband. “You don’t owe [Southern working class whites] a thing, Bill. They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.”

The 1995 Hillary quote, is a more than adequate representation of her “constitutional character.” Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther, and goes much deeper than anyone realizes. Hillary has treated and continues to treat all working class Americans as a species apart, and screw them she did: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Ps. Particularly telling in and of itself, Leon Panetta was even present during Hillary's "screw 'em" admonition. Say goodbye to the small blond man with breasts, boys.

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | April 19, 2008 5:57 PM

Come to think of it, I'm not sure exactly who Matt's point is aimed at. Clinton and her supporters aren't exactly progressives, and I don't think they've ever claimed to be. In another era they'd have been liberal Republicans. But in this era, they're stuck with the Democrats.

Posted by AlanC9 | April 19, 2008 6:05 PM

When we look at Obama, we see who we want to be.

When we look at Hillary, we see who we are. And we're douchebags.

Posted by Petey's Conscience | April 19, 2008 6:43 PM

When we look at Obama, we see who we want to be.

When we look at Hillary, we see who we are. And we're douchebags.

Speak for yourself. I see a decent man who's a great politician in Obama. I see an inauthentic modern woman who's husband was a great politician in HRC.

Who I want to be is Archie Goodwin or Fats Waller.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 19, 2008 7:22 PM

what hilzoy said:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/04/ok-now-i-care.html

Posted by Phoebe | April 19, 2008 7:24 PM

"When we look at Hillary, we see who we are. And we're douchebags."

Speak for yourself, douchebag. When look in the mirror I see someone who doesn't want Hillary to be president. So there's hope!

Posted by Phoebe | April 19, 2008 7:31 PM

Petey was never genuinely progressive. He was always a bitter little person who wanted what he saw as a strong white man to lead him out of his tangled self-contradictions. Edwards, flawed as he was, worked for Petey until he quit, and so Petey jumped to the nearest strong white male left in the Democratic race. She happened to be Hillary, but beggars can't be choosers. Doubtless, once Madame de Carptebag has been booted forth, Petey will rejoice in receiving the patronising pat on the head that John "I think I have an economic policy somewhere here" McCain bestows on his faithful, complete with a small medallion blessed by Pastor Hagee. At that point, Petey will experience the bliss that passes all understanding, and find his natural home in the incoherent party of grumpy, corrupt old men. Give it a little time, and Petey will be back here putting his lips to the service of John McCain's maverick manhood.

Posted by kass | April 19, 2008 7:42 PM

There are times in ones life that speaking up against that which is obviously wrong and unjust is not just an option, but a duty. Many in the Democratic Party have consistently avoided their duty in this regard, enabling her behavior-- and it is shameful.

Those who do not repudiate her racist McCarthyism and dishonest divisive campaign will be exposed under the bright cleansing light of day.

Clintons and Rove do not have a monopoly on retribution. Obama would not think in terms of retribution. But many of his supporters are keeping score and will exact retribution to show that the Clinton McCarthyism, Racism and Rovian tactics will not go unnoticed or unpunished.

Those who do not repudiate her campaign will find that they have limited political careers and will be on the outside looking in, wishing they had done the right thing.

Posted by Fides | April 19, 2008 7:43 PM

Unless sometime after November construction begins on re-education camps outside of Shreveport - pols will continue to be pols and praise will be lavished on them by pimply courtiers and Buchwaldian jesters forever and anon. Years from now, Hillary will have higways and stadiums named after her. And, Chuck Schumer's mulish visage will adorn the new nickel.

Posted by Trevor | April 19, 2008 7:54 PM

Sheesh, enough already. One of them is going to win the nomination and it probably won't be because of anything you or I do. It will probably depend on millions of ordinary people who don't care too much for strong language or fist-shaking politics.

Clean your gun, make a quilt, order your copy of the Anarchists Cookbook, whatever, but unless you're willing to give loopy McCain the nuclear trigger, you're going to vote for the Democrat.

The fact is that it won't be as good as you think if your guy wins, and it won't be as bad as you think if the other guy wins. Unless we're talking the general and McCain is the other guy. Then it could be a lot worse.

Express your tensions in some positive way- like drinking. Or doing parodies of Petey.

Posted by serial catowner | April 19, 2008 7:54 PM

Serial catowner, how could we possibly parody Petey? The original is a parody already. If you parody a parody, don't you end up speaking sensibly, just as a double negative produces a positive?

Posted by morzer | April 19, 2008 8:00 PM

Trevor you may well be right, but there is a remedy. If we must name something after Clinton, let it be the public latrine. Every time someone needs a pitstop, they can say to friends,
"Excuse me, I need to stop by the Clinton". As for Schumer, surely some line of sex-aids would be happy to name its lead product accordingly: "Try our new Schumer. The hugest tool in the world. Now in an exciting shade of pink." This too is immortality, of a sort.

Posted by zummel | April 19, 2008 8:07 PM

The Clintons and the DLC are at war with the Democratic activist base and progressives generally. The arc of her campaign faithfully mirrors that run by Lieverman in 2006.

Posted by della Rovere | April 19, 2008 8:28 PM

The Clintons and the DLC are at war with the Democratic activist base and progressives generally. The arc of her campaign faithfully mirrors that run by Lieverman in 2006.

True. Hopefully she doesn't take the same final step Holy Joe did, though. I think she's already given enough electoral gifts to President-elect McCain.

Posted by jbryan | April 19, 2008 8:31 PM

Um, it's not "crush the left, move to the right".

It's more like "recognize which lefty policies have totally and utterly failed". Sorry, but Marxism is dead. And affirmative action didn't work.

When you let go of the definitions of "liberal" that require stuff that (a) has failed and (b) the overwhelming majority of Americans refuse to vote for, you can see why Obama isn't going to be President.

We don't like his marxist 'false consciousness' references (Obama himself appears to be the real opiate of the masses). We want to know, if he is planning "change", exactly what this revolution entails before signing up. It has not escaped our notice that the new divide isn't between right vs. left - it's between normal people vs. angry, bitter, alienated, self-pitying whiners who think the "solution" to America's problems is to get very very angry, without ever stopping to think, "and then what?"

And forget the affirmative action. Sorry - if it hasn't ended poverty after forty years, forget it.

I understand Obama has that portion of the electorate that thinks comparing Clinton to bird poop/dog poop is sooooo cool. Wow the man can deliver inappropriate insults better than anyone. I bet he can call her filthy names like a real brotha. That's called "raising the level of discourse" or something. I bet they'd all love to see him smack her the way a man smacks a woman in the 'hood. They're so enamored of his ability to make cultural references - and they don't know how to find Israel on a map anyway. But that's not going to be enough in the general, and it will be almost as funny as it is sad/tragic when you guys wake up and realize that yes, the Democratic party really is split, and the working class really has defected to the Republicans - not out of spite but because what Obama is offering is just absolutely unthinkable. NO WAY.

The media reporting on this campaign has been atrocious. Even with nothing but negative press on Clinton and gushing praise of Obama from the press (and massively outspending her), Obama still can't win. Too many people continue to want Clinton, even after your best efforts. And, yes, we've noticed that what you call "reporting" is actually more like "campaigning".

Posted by lyn | April 19, 2008 8:53 PM

Cool, another Republican troll.

Posted by jbryan | April 19, 2008 9:07 PM

Petey is a "crypto-Yglesias hater" - just like Josh Marshall is a "crypto-Zionist" and Matt is a "crypto Iran hawk".

"MoveOn didn't oppose the war in Afghanistan."

They should have.

Nitwit Lyn thinks "Obama can't win" - excuse me, dumbshit, he IS winning. He HAS won. Clinton has ZERO chance of being the candidate - unless Obama is assassinated by one of Bill's contract assets. Obama is ahead in pledged delegates - an unassailable lead, by the way - and also in the popular vote. Even seating Florida and Michigan will not change this fact. And Clinton's superdelegate lead has been almost erased, and her progress in obtaining superdelegate support has dropped like a stone.

And Gore and Carter are going to demand she drop out after PA, and/or endorse Obama.

Clinton is toast.

Get used to it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 19, 2008 9:10 PM

Triangulation made sense when the republican party still contained at least some sane and intellectual people in it.

All those people were driven out in the great Gingrich purge. And the few that spoke out against the Iraq War, marginalized even further.

At that point, all that was left is the wingnut party of delusional racist asswipes that we see today.

Therefore triangulation with a bunch of loons makes no sense. It's like putting one foot on the ground and another into molten lava. You're not firming up your balance, you're just roasting your foot.

This is what Hillary fails to grasp, and why she'll deservedly lose.

Posted by WinSmith | April 19, 2008 9:21 PM

And, maybe it's wishful thinking at this stage, but I don't think the Reagan Democrats are going to vote for McCain the way the punditocracy is saying they will in the wake of "bittergate", the Rev, Michelle's gaffes, Weather Underground, not good in diners, et. al. I happen to agree with Chris Matthews about that last thing: he lacks the common touch, and a bowling score of 37 (37?!) is just atrocious. He's gotta relax - I don't give a fuck if he can dance - that'll help with a few women, but that's it. Reagan Democrats WANT change. Right now, they don't believe voting Republican will improve their or their kids' lives. They WANT to vote for the Democrat. Obama can't just slide in to a November Victory. He's got to step up his game to a sufficient level where people can live with the guy. Can he do it? I think he can. But, Hillary? Forget it. No way. She'll always engender doubts even amongst her natural constituencies. She'll never be able to close the deal. Obama, problems and all, is the country's best bet for a better life, a better America.

Posted by Trevor | April 19, 2008 9:32 PM

"Even with nothing but negative press on Clinton and gushing praise of Obama from the press"

HAHAHAHA!

People still use this line? First after the non-stop Wright coverage, then after the debate?

"because what Obama is offering is just absolutely unthinkable"

Such as? On what domestic policy issue are they radically different?

I know they're very different on foreign policy. Hillary herself described her Mid East strategy as far to the right of Bush, Cheney, and McCain. It was in the debate, you might have heard it.

Finally, Hillary has personally insulted Democratic activists, and Obama voters in general ("The skies will open up" and all that hogwash). Can you please point towards an insult Obama used for Clinton? Thank you.

Posted by 55 | April 19, 2008 9:46 PM

"Sorry, but Marxism is dead. And affirmative action didn't work."

Oh, for the love of God, why am I always the last to know?!

"There is no long-term strategy for progressive politics as long as progressive politics continues to be inconsistent with the values and positions of the American people."

Lecturing from "on-high" again, Mixner?

Well, at least now I can give up compassion, decency and altruism. Never cared for them valyus, much. And I'm assuming the missionary position is now de rigueur. Guess that sling's gotta go in the next garage sale...

Or perhaps I should "liberate" my mind with the often discussed, frequently parodied, yet rarely practiced Libertarianism. One would think that the zenith of all political theories (or political fads, take yer pick) would have a bit more of a following,..., or at least a more honest following...

Posted by Rihilism | April 19, 2008 9:53 PM

I think Hillary's problem is more simple than that. She has the "If you are not with me you are against me" mentality. So screw them. But if you want a psychoanalysis of the Clintons, they are narrassitic users of people, things and ideas. If you think about it, the Clinton's have no had an orginial idea ever. They copied the Republicans by moving the party to the center. The Clinton's copied the Regan model of being able to hold all the coalitions within the Republican Party, the religious right, hawks, liberterians and fiscal conservatives. Clinton did the same with the Democrats. Appear to be tough on crimes for the hawkish part of the Democratic party, spout the usual liberal ideals of healthcare and abortion rights and coopt the Republicans ideas of Welfare Reform and Nafta.

Conversely, McCain is trying to do the same thing as Bill by trying to be a maverick on global warming, stem cells and immigration.

But getting back to Hillary, she doesn't really have a core set of values anymore but has mingled her youthful socialism to her queen Evita personality.

Posted by sonya | April 19, 2008 9:58 PM

Anyone shocked by the Clinton turn the right must have been in a coma during Bill's second term.

Posted by Kyle | April 19, 2008 10:18 PM

I am astounded that anyone in the Democratic party can support Hillary after all of her betrayal of Democratic party principles.

This smear she uttered against moveon.org is highly ironic, since as others have noted, this organization was started to save her husband from removal from office. It probably can be said that if not for moveon.org, Bill would have been removed from office and Hillary would have no political career.

The Clintons operate more like the mafia characters we see in the movies than anything else.

Posted by cm | April 19, 2008 10:31 PM

Hey all you pathetic Obama- third party types:

Barack's voting record says he is a clinton democrat. Nearly identical. So save your breathe saying he's a different kind of democrat. He came to the senate and did everything she did.
He runs against clinton not cause he is ready but it would be 8 or 12 years before he'd get a chance if she wins. That's not audacity.

He bashes hillary because she was in his way of his destiny, its his only path. He bashes Hillary because it attracts the clinton haters money.
He bashes Hillary because he needs the supercilious anti-hillary vote. He talks about change and pretends that just being democrat isn't the change America is looking for. He lies over and over by pretending he wants to end the war more than Hillary. He plays into the fantasy/paranoia of hillary haters that secretly she doesn't want to end the war.
He puts out a health care plan without mandates to pull in the crazy dean voters and crazy perot voters and says 'change' fifty times in a speech to hypnotise these third party crazies.
And you crazy dot.com and dot.org third party crazies totally fall for it and line up with the Hillary haters and you go do exactly what her feb fundraising quote said you did: you go game the caucuses in a dozen states just like idiots try to fuck up the voting on a dumb show like American idol: because you can.
the third party crazies always think they found the last honest person in America: jerry Brown, Ralph Nader, John Anderson, Perot, Dean and now Obama. You get wrapped around their finger until they come up short.
He spent all your freeking money on tv ads in pennsylvania (outspending the woman 3 -1 and 4 - 1 for 6 weeks!)
AND doesn't it make you nervous that that is old politics, not new politics? dumping your money on tv commercials AND its not even working?
He's still behind?
He just can't close the deal.
What if he loses big tuesday?
won't you look dumb?
Oh, I know. You'll just blame other people again like with dean.
Ha.

Posted by Michael C. | April 19, 2008 11:09 PM

CM: the impeachment of Bill Clinton didn't work out the way it was meant to because the republicans totally overplayed their hand, just like the newtster overplayed his hand on the plane that time, just like the newtster overplayed his hand shutting down the government, just like Move On totally overplayed its hand with the petreus ad in the times.
They did not save clinton's presidency.
AND what happened back then doesn't change the fact that they screwed up the petreus hearings with the dumb ad, and it doesn't change the fact that they endorsed Obama and did so at a time designed to drive the stake through her candidacy
and that they actively oppose her.
What she said about the move on lefties (I am an old fashioned leftie) is absolutely true: you guys are like the revolutionaries in france who devoured their own over and over again.
good luck.

Posted by Michael C. | April 19, 2008 11:23 PM

Michael has somehow managed to convince himself that the Reagan Democrats are the True Democrats. Pity him this delusion.

Posted by jbryan | April 19, 2008 11:45 PM

There is just no proof that only one side "gamed the caucus system." I've heard (unsubstantiated) accusations on BOTH sides. The only thing with proof is that Clinton tried to disenfranchise student voters in Iowa.

And Michael C., if you read above, I admit that they're extremely similar on domestic policy. It's just that she openly advocates a foreign policy that is exactly in line with Charles Krauthammer, and we cannot afford that.

Posted by 55 | April 20, 2008 12:06 AM

Micheal C you are so off based. First of all the Republicans didn't over play their hands with the shut down of the gov. It make Clinton look weak and ineffectual after all the travel gate, nannygate, heathcare debacle and within two years the Republicans gain control of Congress. Second, MoveOn did save Bill's behind. People forget he was convicted of a crime and lost his license to pratice law, so MoveOn was great at ramping up sympathy for him. He was a convicted President, first one in history. And Congress which was controlled by the Republicans could have impeached him-because the wimpy Democrats didn't do anything- everyone backed away from Bill even his cabinets members because he lied to them. He only had Lanny Davies, Carville, Begalia and MoveON on his side.

And yes Move On was stupid with the Peteraues ad but how could the endsore a person who voted for the war in Iraqi, they only had two choices Edwards and Obama and Edwards had already dropped out by then.

Just like she said screw them to southern democrats who didn't support Bill in 92. She is saying screw them to MoveOn. And, if she so values the democratic values why is she so mad at them expressing their inalienable rights. The world doesn't not revolve around her. And it's stupid move to piss off a large section of her party.

I can't wait till we get the audio of her saying screw the n***ers. Or screw anyone under the age 65. But didn't Bill just say that the young are foolish, his mild screw them to anyone under the age of 30. This woman is a joke.

Posted by sonya | April 20, 2008 12:20 AM

Well, it was close, but Michael C wins the prize for random gibberation of the day, with a mention for Petey. As for the idea that Michael C is an old lefty, I assume he means it in roughly the same sense as John McCain, when he claims to be an old maverick.

Posted by morzer | April 20, 2008 1:35 AM

Obama may lose in PA, but he won't "lose big". The polls are showing a less than eight point lead for Clinton. Everybody has been saying for weeks she needs at least ten points to claim any real "victory" - and even then the delegates she gets will be ten or less - and they will be wiped out by subsequent Obama wins in two weeks.

Clinton is toast.

Even talking about her any more is old news.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 20, 2008 3:29 AM

Edwards was this season's trust fund candidate. After all, even though Edwards went all-out in Iowa, Obama still got more union member support. Edwards was the nominee of upper-middle class educated people who have degrees in sociology and think they are class warriors for having been part of their campus's labor activist group. He was the nominee of elites who think they have to save the working class from themselves, like making them buy health insurance they can't afford, which is why he glosses over such gritty details by calling it being for universal health care.

Part of the reason I never switched from supporting Obama to Edwards (after going from supporting Clinton to Obama) was that I always smelled wafts of bullshit coming from his campaign that members of the working class seemed to have smelled as well. I just never bought that someone who had been a favorite son of the DLC and had worked at a hedge fund was no some fire-breathing populist. Feingold pointed out that Edwards had to pretend his voting record didn't exist when running as Jerry Brown redux.

Petey had all of these points pointed out to him, but he acted like they didn't exist just as he pretends that several points made about Clinton (like how to "prove" that she's ahead in the popular vote you need to spin some wild bullshit) don't exist. For Petey, reality is a malleable object that exists only in ways that cast Petey as the greatest progressive activist for working people ever. Petey hides behind the working class the way Republicans hide behind American soldiers to gloss over their own failures.

Posted by Reality Man | April 20, 2008 3:52 AM

Obama may lose in PA, but he won't "lose big". The polls are showing a less than eight point lead for Clinton.

I'm not so sure. The thing I find interesting about the Pennsylvania polls isn't so much the margin separating Sens. Clinton and Obama as it is the actual percentage of the vote they each seem to take. Clinton's support fluctuates from poll to poll, but Obama's... never does. It seems like all his or her campaigning does (or intervening negative or positive events) is move voters to and from the pro-Clinton and undecided columns.

I have yet to see a single poll showing Obama with over 45% of the vote. Most of the time, he's closer to 42, 43%. It seems like a pretty clear ceiling. And I imagine most of the undecideds in PA are going to go for Clinton... well, let's just say I'm not going to be surprised by a double digit win, and unless I see something indicating Obama can crack over 45%, I'd expect one. It'll be a big media win for her.

Posted by jbryan | April 20, 2008 3:53 AM

jbryan, I agree with most of your post execpt for the undecideds. Penn is supposed to be a Clinton state. I think the undecided voters were original Clintons but don't like her or think she is untrustworthy. Yet they arent sure about Obama. I think they will either stay home or hopefully take a chance with Obama. I don't think they would go back to Clinton this late date.

But Penn is tricky, Clinton does well in the rural part but there isnt alot of people there and Obama is doing well in the cities/surburbs. And their supporters have the exact opposite base. Gov Rendell won because of the cities/surburbs and is hated in the rural parts (especially with the increase taxes on disel fuel). Bob Casey is loved in the rural part but supports Obama.

And on top of that, the high increase in voter registration. All these polls are based on 2004 democratic primaries. No one knows how many Republicans switched over (whether to do a Rush hit job on Obama or to support him). Nor do they know how many Independents switched over and pollsters have not been accurate in tracking the youth vote because they have cell phone more often than land lines.

Plus, I still doubt the accuracy of these polls showing Obama only getting 75% of the black vote when he has been averaging between 80-90%.

I'm just praying for a snow storm (Sorry Penn) to kept the older voters from showing up.

Posted by sonya | April 20, 2008 8:52 AM

The Clinton agenda for 2008 was the same for 1992. It was to sell yourself as a liberal early to get the backing of the liberal institutions and then sell them out once you are in office.

Stephanopoulos, ironically enough, gives the game away on PBS's Frontline:

Stephanopoulos: Triangulation. Dick, whenever he was going to explain to those of us who were slower than him on staff, he would say, "This is triangulation," and hold up his fingers like this. And it was basically to treat Democrats and Republicans in the House alike. Your adversaries were both of them. The president is supposed to push off either one in equal measure and appear to be above the political fray. This was Dick Morris's idea. Yeah, and, you know, it's empty of substance. It's amoral.

They threw a lot of people under the bus without hesitation during their Presidency. I don't understand why they assume that we don't remember.

Posted by Bubba | April 20, 2008 2:44 PM

And affirmative action didn't work. Posted by lyn | April 19, 2008 8:53 PM

Assuming you are a woman, you must know that the #1 beneficiary of Affirmative Action has been women. And it certainly has worked to increase the number of women in the workforce in higher levels of responsibility. Affirmative Action openned the doors of the boardroom and executive washroom to women. Shoot, don't let me tell it, read what NOW (the core of Hillary support) have to say about it. They certainly seem to believe that Affirmative-Action has been effective and necessary to continue.

If you Hillary supporters do not like the Say Anything, Do Anything label, it would help by not saying preposterous things that are convenient for your argument right now, but totally contradict basic and fundamental beliefs of your core supporters like NOW. So I guess there is room under the bus for them now too?

But there is something odd and almost uniquely destructive about saying not simply that he is not the right kind of candidate for our party, but that his supporters are not the right kind of people to be in a coalition with. Posted by pjs | April 19, 2008 3:16 PM

That is a very informed observation and one that I have not made until now. There is a lot of things I could say about this and all of them would not be very flattering about the Clintons, so I will leave it alone.

Posted by Bubba | April 20, 2008 3:16 PM

M. Yglesias,

I'm not typically a praise-monger, but I must give you thanks for stating pithily in this post the precise reason why long ago it seemed obvious that Obama was a better candidate for long-term progressive politics.

Posted by Chris P. | April 20, 2008 7:17 PM

My question is, if Clinton somehow does get the Democratic nomination, do you vote for her? Obviously I'm most interested in Matt's thoughts, but suspect he may not want to answer a hypothetical.
My feeling is she would be a failure as President, be labeled as Liberal, and seriously damage Progressives for a considerable time.

Posted by tom A | April 21, 2008 10:46 AM