Why does Hillary hate activists and the democratic base?

[iamthebandfanman]

"we have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the democratic party. moveon.org didnt want us to go into afghanistan. i mean, thats what were dealing with. and they turn out in great numbers. and you know, they are very driven by their view of our positions, and its primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. i dont agree with them. they know i dont agree with them. so they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

a year ago in a virtual townhall meeting with moveon.org she said :
"youve been asking me the tough questions... youve been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves... i think you have helped to change the face of american politics for the better - both online, and in the corridors of power"

so which is it hillary ?
please, no 'if' answer.

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. She has to share power with them.

The King hates the aristos for the same reason. The aristos hate the middle class for the same reason. And on and on it goes.

[NorthernSpy]

2. because she thinks the Democratic Party should be HER vehicle for achieving HER goals...

... and nothing more.

[anonymous171]

3. Because they don't support her.

[redqueen]

4. I think the one at the moveon townhall was the pandering.

The candid admission that she doesn't agree with them and thinks they're stupid is the real Hillary's opinion.

[hfojvt]

10. it could be the other way around too, at least a little

That she really does like them when they go after Republicans, but then says nasty things about them/us when they make her mad by challenging her.

[ikojo]

5. She and the DLC want to rid the Democratic

party of its union and environmentalist base. There was an article in the New Republic(an) in the early or mid 1990s about how the DLC wanted to bury the L word. It was part of their strategy to appeal to the corporate class.

That strategy gave the house of representatives to the real Republicans in 1994 and the only reason the Democrats got both houses back in 2006 is because people thought (wrongly, obviously) that they would bring Bush to justice and end the occupation of Iraq.

With weak willed leaders like Pelosi and Reid that is not going to happen.

[RainDog]

6. the good news is this

out of the craphole that was the 2000 presidential coup, after 8 years of unmitigated disaster after disaster... after Dean gave those of us who were paying attention a place to work - when the mainline democrats couldn't fight their way out of a paper sack...

the netroots re-invigorated the democratic party and made it have to represent its constituencies or face defeat. We are the anti-dote to the "Reagan Revolution," or the 1980s "me" generation era of selfishness. time to act as one nation again, to deal with our problems and improve all of our lives.

[democrank]

7. Because the activist base is a threat to

business as usual.

[eridani]

8. I'm sure that Clinton has people who have done doorbelling and phonebanking for her

And these people cannot possibly be "activists," just as people who use alcohol or nicotine can't possibly be "drug users."

[K Gardner]

9. They're educated and not susceptible to her right wing b/s pandering and lies.

[Asgaya Dihi]

11. Top down vs bottom up

I could speculate on other things but I'm sure others will do that without me so I'll keep it simple. She's an old style politician with a top down "we're the experts" type of leadership which is a part of why people get away with the elitism accusations about the party in general. In the past to a point it has been true and she represents and is a part of that style.

The problem for them with the grassroots isn't that we're there, it's that we expect it to be a two way relationship rather than a top down one and a community organizer is more open to that than someone who has spent much of their life at the top and making the decisions without our input would be. For the first it's a boon, to the latter a threat.

[Califooyah Operative]

12. DLC. nt

[TexasObserver]

13. Because the activists and democratic base hate her.

Some hate is deserved, and the hatred the left has for her is earned.

[Apollo11]

14. Half of the democratic base has been voting for Hillary

If you look at the latest vote totals on Real Clear Politics*, you will learn that:

16,639,064 people already voted for Hillary (including Florida and Michigan)

16,836,569 people already voted for Obama (including Florida)

If you add the 238,168 "uncommitted"s from Michigan to Obama's total, you get 17,074,737

My point is: those numbers are not too far apart, even if Obama is clearly in front.

But we know that a lot of Obama's votes have come from unaffiliated or "independent" voters.

So if you only count registered Democrats - Hillary would probably be in front.

At the very least - half of registered Democrats have been voting for Hillary Clinton.

* See: www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[Enrique]

15. I think the first passage is more sincere

the second one is sucking up.

[sendero]

16. Because she is Bush-lite.

[Perry Logan]

17. Why do Obamites call half their fellow Democrats racists? This is not good, either.

[mrbluto]

18. Why do you phrase your title like....

...a Faux news lead-in?

Anyone who has read Orwell (1984) would recognize what you're doing, so would a lawyer.

You're basically asking a "Are you sorry you beat your innocent puppy?" question.

The proper answer is "Your question presumes facts not yet established."

Even if the facts are generally stipulated you might, out of courtesy, phrase it a bit differently so as not to give people who might disagree about the particulars a headache.

Why do I bother saying this?

To win big, to have the huge coattails we need this general election, you might want to start thinking about how not to alienate people whose help we'll need.

[lanlady]

19. because it's so much more fun to pander to right-wing groups

like the gun lobby and the neo-cons.

[mrbluto]

20. The pay-off is more reliable.

Say a few of the right dog-whistle phrases to the gun-lobby or neocons and you have a base for life it seems.

or

Make the best of a bad situation (i.e. the Bush presidency) with pragmatic moves and get painted with a broad brush by people whose loyalty is fickle and don't mind using paint supplied by the Republicans.

I'm no fan of triangulating, but considering that the possibilities for an outright coup seemed to be, I can understand the impulse.

Hillary is far from my favorite, but I think she's been demonized in ways destructive to the party, and, frankly, often undeserved.

Look - imagine you're hanging out with a friend "X" who proceeds to thoroughly denigrate, insult, and disrespect a former friend "Y", and clearly enjoys the activity, relishing the hurt each phrase would cause "Y". Then goes out and makes sure every one in earshot gets an earful of what a despicable person "Y" is. You get a front row seat as person "X" ensures no one will ever trust "Y" again.

It may be all true. Every bit of it. An association with "Y" might be something you wouldn't wish on an enemy.

But now what do you think of person "X"?

But do you trust "X"? Would you confide in "X"?

Ever betraying "X" may be the farthest thing from mind, but the vehemency with which "X" campaigned against "Y" it's clear you shouldn't even risk a mistake. It wouldn't be smart to confide much in person "X". In a pinch, if you made a mistake, how much could you afford to level with "X", or would you rather roll the dice at "X" never finding out? In a sad way "X" get's lied to all the time - because "X" has demonstrated he/she can't handle the truth.

Then there's the fact person "X" enjoyed running down "Y" so viciously. How much can you like someone who you know has that sort of behavior roiling under a facade?

Sad to say, unless you're some sort of a saint, we've all been at least a tiny bit like person "X". There are entire political parties run by a pack of person "X" types. Hell - Karl Rove, or his opponents on our side, wouldn't have jobs if there wasn't an exciting frisson to watching the delivery of a good stinging rebuke one's opponents.

But to subsist on that is sickness. A sickness the Republican party makes bank on.

I believe that, given a chance, people are better than that.

We can appeal to health - not sickness.

The Democratic Party should, and can, be healthier.

Can we manage that?

[FrenchieCat]

21. She's a user.