The Netroots VS The Democratic Presidential Candidate

The Atlantic ^ | 5/4/08 | Jon Henke

[Dawnsblood]

Clearly, the Democratic race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has been the top story of this Presidential campaign cycle, but one of the more interesting, and under-covered, sub-stories is the internal dynamics of the Left and the effect this campaign will have on them. Oddly, the Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama contest is not really a battle between different factions of the Democratic Party. There's some DLC vs Progressive struggle, but that's only one element of it. The problem for the netroots - and Progressives in general - is that, despite both being very satisfactory in important ways, both Clinton and Obama reject the Progressive and netroots movement in some important way.

Fundamentally, what the netroots want is a Fighting Progressive. They want an unabashed liberal who will go toe to toe with the Republicans and punch them in the nose.

But what they have is a choice between a Fighting Pragmatist (Hillary Clinton) and a Kumbaya Progressive (Barack Obama).

No matter who wins, their victory represents a rejection of some core element of the Progressive and netroots movement. They will, of course, fall into line with the eventual nominee, but the disconnect with their candidate, and possible President, will be an ongoing vexation for them. In particular, it will create for the netroots a strategic problem. How will the netroots remain relevant and maintain the perception of Party leadership if the leader of their Party is repeatedly and conspicuously rejecting their core demand to either toe the Progressive policy line, or to be a hardened partisan brawler?

[Dawnsblood]

Oops... The article is from last month. Many apologies.

[Darren McCarty]

This is what's interesting. The big money wing of the democrats is the net-roots. Trust fund babies, tort lawyers, academia, feminists. The voting base though are mostly blacks, feminists, and union members. Only one of the three that have money. There's a real elitist attitude among their net-roots wing which adds fuel to the fire.

In some way it mirrors the seven level split among republicans. The country-clubbers, big government conservatives, small l libertarians, religious conservatives, security conservatives, gun rights advocates, and Club for Growth wing. I'm a gun rights advocate and tend to lean toward the libertarians and find myself at odds always with big government conservatives, frequently with the security and country club conservatives, and to a lesser extent with religious conservative outside of the pro-life issues.

We all have our battles.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“How will the netroots remain relevant and maintain the perception of Party leadership if the leader of their Party is repeatedly and conspicuously rejecting their core demand to either toe the Progressive policy line, or to be a hardened partisan brawler?”

Sounds very familiar.

[elizabetty]

I never thought I would see the day that a Clinton was too conservative for the left.

[Ben Ficklin]

"There's some DLC versus progressive struggle"

Early in the campaign there were a lot conflict over whether or not Obama had been a DLC member. He denied it.

Any of the lefties who are supporting Obama thinking that he is very far to the left of Hilda are making a leap of faith.

[Yollopoliuhqui]

If he wasn’t far to the left of Hillary, why did they run him? Candidates are icebergs, 9/10 hidden. Obama is an out and out marxist/leninist mole operative. Once he’s in, say goodbye to the America you once knew.

[Ben Ficklin]

"why did they run him"

Why did "they" run Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich, & Richardson?