Reclaiming the Left

As befits a Presidential campaign that's being run within a percentage point or two of perfect (though it's early and the bunker-busters have yet to be launched from the self-hating right), the people coordinating Hillary Clinton's outreach to the progressive blogworld are personally low-key. There are no grandiose schemes, no complicated maneuvers, no gee-whiz applets, no daily release of Facebook numbers and MySpace metrics.

Call it the Dao of Daou.

The candidate speaks for herself; the platform is powerful but invisible. The strategy is so simple, it's transparent, there for all to see. I'm amazed at how well Clinton is doing with the netroots crowd - a wonderful roiling mob I can claim tangential membership in - and how her campaign has moved the needle on the left. That's Peter Daou I refer to, as insiders know, the former Salon.com blogger and online coordinator in '04 for Kerry-Edwards. So far, Daou and his team have had a fairly singular mission - reclaim goodwill on the left for Hillary Clinton and blunt the phony right-wing talking point that had unfortunately infected many a groovy progressive (that HRC isn't electable).

It's working. Today I joined a conference call of lefty bloggers organized by Peter to announce a super-secret, mystery endorsement of Senator Clinton. So I hopped on like a good lad, and soon heard the Hardball-tested tones of Ambassador Joe Wilson describing why he - adored symbol of the angry, blogging left  - was a Clinton man, through and through. I swear some poor soul forgot to mute and her  "wow!" slipped through.

Now, the average American could care less about a July endorsement from some peripheral figure in the long history of the scandalous disaster known as the Bush Administration. Niger, Schmiger. Then again, the average American doesn't yet know there's an election on next year. No, that doesn't matter. What matters is that Wilson was direct in why he loves Hillary: he believes she's the Democrat most likely to effectively bring the troops home from Iraq.

Dig it. The Clinton campaign in a single call for a bunch of lefty bloggers went directly at the toughest single criticism lobbed by my lefty friends (some of who are to the right of me, by the way) at the Senator. They went right at it. A small chapter overall, but in the blogworld, it was basically the equivalent of George Brett pulling 98-mph Gossage heat into the upper deck (I was at that game, so I know). Via press release, it was just another endorsement. Via exclusive blogger call, it was a moonshot.

From the faux Sopranos "campaign song" video (note that we haven't heard the Celine Dion dreck since it was chosen by lurking Republicans) to the decision to speak at YearlyKos, Clinton hasn't wilted under the glare of the antiwar, angry left. She's gone at it, talked through it. Not the perfect candidate perhaps (but I'm an 80-percenter anyway, entirely jaded, ready to settle for the least disastrous choice) but the near-perfect campaign.

I didn't have time to write this up earlier, which is fine because I've had the chance to see the reaction. Taylor Marsh, for instance, has clashed with Dauo. But here's what she said today:

Clinton has come a long way in understand the blogosphere even in the face   of huge criticism and sometimes out and out bias on the blogs...The '08 selection season is not over by a long shot and I am staying neutral in the primary. But the endorsement of Clinton by Joseph Wilson is a big step for her campaign. That Clinton offered the scoop to a group of bloggers shows just how far she's come and how far she's willing to engage a community, which on the whole is very critical of her on all fronts.

I have noticed some change out there. The rhetoric at DailyKos has lightened (especially in comments) and FireDogLake is positively pro-Clinton. Greg Sargent at TPMCafe analyzes the Wilson endorsement:

A few quick points about this. The Hillary campaign, which rolled out the Wilson news on a conference call with liberal bloggers, clearly hopes the Wilson endorsement serves at least the partial goal of winning over liberal activists and netroots types who might still be unhappy with Hillary for all the reasons you've heard repeatedly by now. Wilson carries great cache among such folks, who were energized by his speaking out against the administration and everything else that happened as a result of his protracted fight with the White House.

It's interesting, then, to note that the primary reason Wilson cited for backing Hillary is her view of what should happen after the war -- her awareness, as he sees it, of the need to end the war "in a way that preserves some shred of our strategic position in the region." This, of course, touches on the whole residual force debate, which ironically is something Hillary has taken heat for from bloggers and others whom the Wilson endorsement is most likely to impress.

More from Dave Johnson, Tom Burka, Steve Clemons, and Jeralyn Merritt.

Comments

[Tom K]

Don't know why I bother, since you seem to think blogging consists of you writing, then ignoring readers' responses (or at least mine). And, the Hill-Shill act is getting very old, very fast. Can't wait till you take off the journo-blogger moustache.

But, three things:

1. "self-hating right" Why would people on the right who criticize Hillary be "self-hating"? Are you calling her a rightist? (More on that below, at Point 3.) If not, I don't get your point.

2. "the equivalent of George Brett pulling 98-mph Gossage heat into the upper deck (I was at that game, so I know)." That was more than one game, unfortunately. I know you were at the Pine Tar game, but the 1980 ALCS was pretty key, too, and I'll bet there were others. Brett could hit a fastball, eh?

3. "What matters is that Wilson was direct in why he loves Hillary: he believes she's the Democrat most likely to effectively bring the troops home from Iraq." Then he's a fool. If Hillary is elected, and serves two terms, I promise you we will have at least 30,000 or 40,000 troops in Iraq when she leaves office, and probably a good deal more. And, by the way, find a quote by her that, considering the source, you would hold out as even saying that she'll do otherwise. She has been, technically, fairly honest on this point. That is one reason why the anti-war left has been slow to warm to her. (The anti-war right, obviously, doesn't need any more reasons that it's already stored up.)

[Tom W.]

What, ignore? Things have been light here of late, admittedly.

Clinton on Iraq: Clinton’s Bill – S 670 (the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007) would set a deadline for redeployment of all but a handful of our troops and rescind the war authorization as of October 11th of this year. Contrary to the common assertion that she supports a "modified occupation" of Iraq, her bill would only leave a skeleton crew of troops there to provide training for Iraqi troops, logistics, etc.

Same as Obama, Biden, Dodd - not as total as Richardson and Edwards. Not sure what you mean, actually, with your "promise."

On your Hill-Shill thing, well it's probably just getting started - but this was about her tactics and team, really. I think she's the best candidate, but could easily get behind Barry O or Johnny E too. No plans to shave, just call 'em as I see 'em.

[Tom W.]

BTW, loved your boy Webb's destruction of Lindsay Graham Sunday - a thing of pure beauty.

[Tom K]

*Not sure what you mean, actually, with your "promise."*

Well, I tell you what. If she's elected, and has the troop level below 30,000 US personnel in Iraq (however denominated for the public) when leaving office, I will pay you $500, if you will promise to buy me a steak dinner, not to exceed $150, in the event that, upon her departure from office, I am shown to be right. BUT: you've gotta actually pay -- and not expense it.

*BTW, loved your boy Webb's destruction of Lindsay Graham Sunday - a thing of pure beauty.*

Didn't see it, or even hear about it. Sounds like a mismatch. Gotta link?

See, I'm putting my money where my mouth is (or, more precisely, where I want it to be). And giving you better than 3-1 odds. And, possibly, testing the limits of the new "no gambling on the internet" legislation.

[Tom K]

*BTW, loved your boy Webb's destruction of Lindsay Graham Sunday - a thing of pure beauty.*

Didn't see it, or even hear about it. Sounds like a mismatch (Graham's not too nimble when forced off script). Gotta link?

[Tom W.]

I accept! Think of how old we'll be, by the way. Eight years in our lives is now a high percentage indeed.

(I also take this as your tacit admission - of sorts - that HRC is even odds for the Presidency).

Click here for a bunch of video options. I particularly admire how Webb held back from any "my boy" talk - must have been very, very tempting when Graham was blathering on about the Iraq trips he's made.

[Tom K]

I have no well-formed view on HRC's chances of getting elected. At one point, I dared believe that her historical dishonesty (too many eg's to get into here), shameless pandering (on mostly trivial things) and obvious lack of principles (most notably on the war) would keep her out of office. Now, I'm not so sure those things aren't advantages in the race.

On the Webb-Graham thing, your link tells me I need a password, so I still haven't seen it but did read the transcript and comments on some lefty site. Two things stood out to me: (1) the left seems really invested in the notion that Graham is gay; and (2) a few folks asked, but no one seems to have followed up on, what the basis is for Graham's claim that his family has a record of military service, going back to the Revolution, comparable to Webb's.

Not that it should matter -- both of them should be judged principally on what they say and do, not on their family histories -- but Graham's claim had such a school-yard "your one too" quality, and Webb's family history is so extraordinary in this regard, I would imagine that a little research would show that Graham was, essentially, lying.

Not that I doubt his family has a record of military service. I know he himself does, as well. But, as I pointed out to you in a different context some time ago, it is one thing to say people in your family have served in the military, it is another thing to be a "military family."

[Andrea Batista Schlesinger]

Was once at a progressive gathering with Joe Wilson where he told the crowd that it would be politically infeasible to call for troop withdrawal. So I think your equation might be off. Good endorsement just the same, but not from someone who is a credible voice on troop withdrawal.

[bruce]

thank you, Andrea, a common sense voice from the moderate left. Rather than go goo-goo ga-ga over the "perfection" of Sen. Clinton's campaign (and she is running a good campaign), I would like to see progressives, at this stage, put pressure on her to take important positions on health care, "free trade", the middle class squeeze, and so on. not to mention withdrawing from Iraq with no residual bases.

[Tom W.]

Yeah, surprising Wilson would play politics on that, Andrea...or not!

Bruce, who's the best president of your lifetime? The most progressive? It's a tough one to answer, as it is for more. It's a mixed bag, as most presidencies are and have to be.

You might check this out - I think it's a decent progressive economic agenda m'self:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/inequality/

That said, this post was about the tactic, mainly. Sure I like Clinton, because she's the most electable Democrat.

[Tom K]

Yeah, Bruce. Governing requires pragmatic compromise; therefore, it is unreasonable to expect a candidate for president of the United States to take clear positions on the issues.

Tom's a bright guy. That he's reduced to this level of argument in defending Hillary says a lot (though it doesn't explain why he feels the need).

[Tom W.]

"Reduced" - that's rich - the Tom K and Bruce Show, never thought I'd live to see the day.

Taing the top tier candidates and leaving aside Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, how do you two separate Clinton out from the others as not taking clear positions? They're all politicians begging for votes, and I'd be the last ever to assign great hopes to a politician.

I simply don't get it - all you guys talk about is her style of attack and obvious ambition.

[Tom K]

Tom:

I referred to her "historical dishonesty" "shameless pandering" and "obvious lack of principles (most notably on the war)".

It looks like you're the one who wants to talk about "style of attack and obvious ambition", since you're referring to those charges rather then the ones I've made. But OK, I'll respond to your points as directly as you've ignored mine.

To me, her ambition is a little annoying, but mainly because I find other things about her annoying. Ambition, in a politian, is pretty much a given. There's something to be said for concealing it, but the benfits of that are basically cosmetic.

As to her "style of attack", I can't recall ever criticizing this. If you can point me to something I've said I'll stand corrected, but I'd also be surprised since I'm not even sure what "style of attack" means, or what hers is. Necessarily, then, I don't recall ever having thought that her "style of attack" deserved a place anywhere on the (fairly lengthy) list of things that I find odious about her. So, the idea that this is "all I want to talk about" strikes me as kind of strange.

[Tom W.]

So I took "historical dishonesty" "shameless pandering" and "obvious lack of principles" - stipulated for every successful pol in American history short of Washington - as a style point.

If you think she goes well above the likes of, just sayin', FDR, LBJ, Nixon, and Reagan - or Edwards, Romney, Rudy, McCain - please educate me. Otherwise, it's just a style point - that the way she's done it stands out more to you.

[Tom K]

"Historical dishonesty": Do you really want me to go into this? It feels cheap, and must sound it too, to rehash the 90's. Would that she weren't running, so we wouldn't have to.

I haven't the stomach to run through it all, but, by way of example: (i) no one with a clue believes her "cattle futures" story, because it is patently incredible if you know anything about futures markets; (ii) it is a scientifically proven fact that billing records do not reify out of the mists, even in the rarefied air of the White House; (iii) normal experience teaches us that people seldom lie to their diaries to make their bosses look bad, then contradict their diaries by telling the truth before Congressional Committees. It's not just dazzling array or varity of lies, but the shamelessness and lack of sophistication (suggesting as they do contempt for the public) that set me off, and set her apart.

"Shameless pandering": I think it is fair to expect that, while pandering, politicians avoid speaking in different accents in different regions (each caught on tape), or claiming to be named after famous people who were unknown at the time of naming, or identifying themselves with three or more hometowns (or more than one "favorite" baseball team: I'm calling you out on this one too, Doris Kearns Goodwin -- author of loving memoirs of both the Dodgers and Red Sox -- even though you're just a political propagandist, not a politican).

"obvious lack of principles (most notably on the war)". If you believe her rap on the war, this won't make sense to you. If, like most sentient life forms, you don't believe her rap on the war, this will be self-evident. (EG, everyone knew that Bush was going to war if he got approval; HRC has no business claiming she thought he wouldn't).

[Tom W.]

Yeah, so? That's my basic response - I mean, pick any of the leading Repubs or the current President or any in our lifetime and it would be a 5-minute job to find deceit and pandering. The obvious lack of principles - what we call "The Reagan Doctrine" on the left - well, that seems par for the course, though regrettable.

Really, there's just no big deal about Hillary Clinton in these areas when you look at the environment and the competition.

[Tom K]

The problem is, when you want to hold yourself out as an agent of change, you can't rely on the "I'm no worse than the other guys" defense. Especially when, in terms of volume of documented offenses, you are worse.

"The obvious lack of principles - what we call "The Reagan Doctrine" on the left . . ."

You can call it whatever you want, but Wikipedia describes the "Reagan Doctrine" as the policy under which: "the U.S. provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist resistance movements in an effort to 'rollback' Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The doctrine was designed to serve the dual purposes of diminishing Soviet influence in these regions of the world, while also potentially opening the door for democracy in nations that were largely being governed by Soviet-supported dictators."

If your point is that the left believes Reagan had no principles: (i) you're wrong if you're speaking historically: in his day, Reagan's critics on the left, who I read endlessly, mostly complained about the substance of his principles, not his lack of principles; (ii) you may be right if you're speaking of the contemporary left: I haven't heard, previously, its members attempt to rewrite history in this regard, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[Tom W.]

Reagan lacked principles as much as HRC or any modern, mainstream pol.

He went from being an ardent New Dealer to a Goldwater anti-government acolyte and then back to a big government type, who expanded the Federal bureaucracy by 90% (I cite Lew Rockwell on this).

Yes, he was an anti-communist - big deal. Every president from Truman on was.

[Tom K]

Tom:

Slog away rewriting history, as you please. The verdict on Reagan that history will record is not what you wish.

Your thinking is rather muddled if you believe that converting from a new-dealer to a small-goverment conservative shows lack of principle. It shows a change in belief, at most. (In fact, FDR's government was so much smaller than LBJ's, it doesn't even necessarily show that).

Lack of principle is suggested when someone changes what they previously held out as a deeply held view to gain political advantage.

Reagan appeared on the political scene with a set of views that appeared completely against the grain of where the country was headed (note his premiere was to support Goldwater; if he was dealing in political calculation with that move, then he was a genius indeed.)

He succeeded because: (i) he had credibility, to some, because he had previously been regarded as non-ideological or slightly New-Dealish; and (ii) people mostly believed that he meant what he said, even if they disagreed with him.

You penultimate point is the worst sort of gamesmanship. I don't recall you identifying Regan, while he was in office, as a big-government type. Rather, I recall you, like most of his critics, complaining about his efforts to cut social programs, and expressing satisfaction that the D congress largely prevented him from doing so. That reality, rather than your present spin, is what history will record.

Of course, Reagan was big-government in one way, which you also complained about at the time: military spending as a component of his program of standing up to (without provoking) the Soviet Union. As usual, you try to pretend this was bi-partisan, but the record is too clear for history to accept that malarkey.

There was a little thing called 1968, which bars any serious argument that there was a "bi-partisan cold war consensus" over the last 20 years of the conflict. The D party leaders and candidates of that era all have lengthy records showing that, while they were certainly "anti-communist" in the sense of not wishing for the success of the communist system, they were not in favor of the policies that expedited the demise of the Soviet Union (according the Soviet leadership, among others). The closest the mainstream D party of this era came to a "Cold Warrior" was Jimmy "Inordinate Fear of Communism" Carter.

Since only the Fed. govt. can conduct foreign policy, and the Soviet Union was overtly committed to exporting communism world wide, growing govt. to oppose the Soviets did offend most small-gov't conservatives' idea of principle. Some at LewRockwell see it differently, I know. But I don't think you can expect to be taken seriously when selectively relying on what amount to quasi-anarchist-libertarian sources while shilling for Hill.

I recall Regan being called crazy for saying, while we were in college, that the Soviet Union was headed to its proximate demise due to the inherent flaws of its system. I recall intellgient opinion assailing Reagan as, at best, blinded by ideology, at worst crazy, for saying this. I recall you, generally, strongly agreeding with "intelligent opinion" in its many battles with Reagan. One thing I know for sure: you never said: "I may generally disagree with Reagan, but he's right about the prospects of the Soviet Union, and all those brainy liberals disagreeing with him are wrong".

Saying what you believe in the face of ridicule, especially when it appears to be against your own poitical interests, is the essence of principle. The few politicans who have shown principle generally must take comfort in their principles to mollify their lack of success (since lack of success and principle are highly correlated). Reagan will stand out, despite your best efforts, because he came at, and recognized, a point in history that enbabled him to be both principled and right. That is why you find him worth attacking today, when Gerry Ford, GHWB, and the other Republican leaders of the post-Nixon era are essentially forgotten.

[Tom W.]

Heh-heh - knew I'd get you on challenging the Reagan hagiography (which is seriously on the downside and will continue to droop during our lifetimes, I'm afraid).

Sure, I don't focus in obsessively in '68 - an obsession that brought us the neo-cons and Cheney, who seem literally deranged with the work of undoing the overrated hippie left.

Reagan was big government in all ways, friend - social spending was slashed, of course, but government oversight into the lives of Americans grew, grew, grew. He was a man who wanted a big government to command - he just shifted priorities.

And he began the series of feints toward the religious right, filled with empty rhetoric never acted on, while doing nothing about their social causes.

Reagan was bellicose towards the Soviets - till he got into office, of course. Then he followed roughly the path laid out by his predecessor with Salt II, human rights rhetoric (which Reagan ridiculed and then adopted, most famously at Helsinki) over containment, draft and military technology spending (Carter, you will recall, spent more than Nixon and Ford) and - frankly - the bogus Olympics decision and toothless Afghan resolutions.

He adopted the Carter Doctrine toward the Persian Gulf and Soviet domination in the region. And he took up the decade of negotation begun by Nixon and carried on by Ford and Carter. But he was also lucky with his negotiating partner.

The idea that growing government to oppose the Soviets was the hallmark of just the Reagan era is, frankly, laughable. And yeah, Reagan's loose lips frightened people and may well have pushed us to the brink dring the brief Andropov regime.

But look, I've posted here that Reagan was a "great man" in the true sense of the term (no matter whether I thought him good and honorable; I didn't) - he was a big-time politician who saw his chances, and took 'em. He's certainly worthy of comparison to Hillary Clinton - I think he rises to that level.

[Tom K]

*The idea that growing government to oppose the Soviets was the hallmark of just the Reagan era is, frankly, laughable.*

Indeed it is; as Ike's warning makes clear, the process started much earlier. But the bi-partisan consensus was long done by 1980. That Carter is the best you can come up with as an example of a Dem. of that era who favored opposing the Soviets vigorously says a lot.

*He's certainly worthy of comparison to Hillary Clinton - I think he rises to that level.*

Since all she's done to date is be a respectable (if the Iraq stuff doesn't bother you too much) and mostly low-key Junior Senator, it's hard to understand how you can call anyone "great", and compare them to Hillary, at the same time.

I would write your comment off as the tweak it plainly is, but I'd rather pretend to take you seriously and call you on it, to test the limits of your Hill-Shillary. Based on her record to date, rather than what you might hope she could do if elected, do you seriously contend that HRC deserves comparison to RR as a figure on the world-historical stage?

If a woman becoming Senator is so significant, does that mean Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Carolyn Mosley-Braun, et al. are also "great" in the sense you used the term for Reagan? Or, as it might appear to, say, anyone not currently on HRC's payroll, are you blowing smoke out your butt?