The Hillary Wave

As someone who works a bit in fundraising, I'm familiar with the oldest adage in the playbook: to raise money, you have to ask for it. For more than a year, Hillary Clinton's grassroots fundraising has been a rounding error in the vast big-ticket fundraising machine of her campaign - certainly behind Barack Obama and even Ron Paul. So while it looked like Clinton's grassroots support wasn't there, in reality it was merely laying low, waiting to be asked.

Well, consider that Hillary base activated and it's about time. Coupled with Clinton's own $5 million commitment to her own campaign and little dash of post Super Tuesday desperation, a massive tidal wave of grassroots support for Hillary Clinton has moved in the last 48 hours - 75,000 new donors pumping millions into the treasury (including a few bucks from this blogger). Clearly, much of it comes from newly-activated women - the "quiet base" for the Clinton campaign that never really showed its presence when the campaign had eight Democrats in the field. Three factors are bringing them online to make small contributions that can later be matched, in my view.

The first is Clinton's own seemingly endless reservoir of energy and drive, best witnessed in her spunky face-to-face meetings with Ted Kennedy, the friend who turned political enemy. Donors needed to see that Hillary was neither tired, nor defeated - and damned if she's either.

Second, of course, is the rampant sexism at play in this race, from the "claws out," "likeable enough," "would shake Ahmadinejad's hand but not yours, Hillary" moments of the candidate himself to the boorish misogyny of the Obama-rooting press. That's fired up the base. [ Another great post today by Melissa McEwen covers all the sad, dirty details.]

Finally, there's the threat - the reality that Senator Obama may win this race, that he's the new frontrunner and a messianic force, that the movement to break the highest glass ceiling in the land may well have to wait one more entire generation, or maybe another century. Panic creates adrenalin in humans,and adrenalin feeds campaigns. Finally, there's some adrenalin on the Clinton side in this race. I don't care that it's caused by fear - I do care that this new energy is encouraged and wisely employed by Senator Clinton's campaign.

Over at OpenLeft, a fine lefty political site that I'd characterize as intelligently pro-Obama (you won't find any messiah talk there, nor any misogyny), Matt Stoller put up a post extolling the new Clinton wave and he makes a few legitimate points:

These are suburban women who probably haven't been part of the culture of online giving, and who for some reason have started to contribute.  The Clinton campaign has organized its online activities around streaming media, the Hillary chats and videos, the Sopranos video, and the Celine Dionne song contest.  Internally, the media heavies are probably in charge.  What happened now, though, is that the Clinton campaign just tapped out of its McAuliffe big dollar donors, and Clinton was forced to rely on her real base - the women who love her.  And unwittingly, with her showing in the Super Tuesday states and her $5 million donation to her own campaign, she asked them for support in a way she never had.  And they responded.

It's remarkable, because it is converting voters and supporters into activists and donors, only it's probably not the creative class anymore.  Clinton, like Dean, became an underdog, a real underdog, with more public support than Village support, and her public directly responded over the internet to close this gap. 

In other words, the Obama campaign has had a strategy of cultivating online donors and activists, they know how to do it, and they are very good at it.  The Clinton campaign has not done any of this particularly well because it hasn't been their strategy.  And somehow, they are at rough parity over the last 48 hours.  There is probably something of an earthquake inside the Clinton campaign when these tired Clinton operatives, cynical for 20 years, actually feel, really feel, her supporters reach out and lift them up for the first time.

It is an earthquake inside the campaign - you can feel it. This is a campaign that was on the ropes before New Hampshire and was surprised by the Clinton surge to victory there. It's a campaign that went all hang-dog in the early hours of Super Tuesday when a set of bogus exit polls on Drudge showed Hillary losing big across the board. It's a campaign that was genuinely surprised by her important wins in Massachusetts and California. And yes, it is a campaign that is in shock that Hilary Clinton has such strong grassroots fundraising support almost overnight.

Frankly, it's a campaign that needs to spend more time with the grassroots - on the neutral and pro-Clinton blogs,  over at Hillary's Voice, and actively taking on the sexists in the media that Senator Clinton's supporters have come to despise. Peter Daou's valiant work in the netroots needs more support from the candidate, and from the campaign. There's no excuse for ceding caucus battles to Obama. We want a fight, damnit! You say you're the fighting campaign - so do it. Oh, and one more thing:

Keep. Mark Penn. Off. Television. Period. The End.

Call it tough love, but that's the kind of thing I hear everywhere, read in comments, and see in my inbox. Clinton supporters are fired up and they're angry. This thing has a long way to go, and Hillary faces a rough patch over the next 10 days - she may not grab a win anywhere. Doesn't matter. Round up the super-delegates. Fight for the votes in Michigan and Florida. Win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Sweep Puerto Rico's overweighted delegates. And claim the nomination.

There is a wave for Clinton right now, new enthusiasm for the fight from a suddenly deep bench of supporters. This can carry the campaign if it pays attention and cultivates that energy. And we've got more scratch in the game now.

UPDATE: Nice job by David Shuster of MSNBC (aka, The Frat House, aka Obama Central) calling Senator Hillary Clinton a pimp, and Chelsea Clinton a whore. As Howie Kurtz put it, "Using a prostitution metaphor for the daughter of a presidential candidate is a surefire way for a journalist to get into trouble." Paging Tom Brokaw, your legacy is dying...

Comments

[JoeySky18]

it's the Clinton surge.

[grlpatriot]

Tom, you've nailed it! This piece rocks.

[James Wolcott]

As a codicil to the Mark Penn edict: Keep Terry McAuliffe off the air as a mouthpiece too. His grinning jackal demeanor is a turnoff, it just reeks of the Beltway buddy system.

[Mike P]

Tom, might be a long time before we see another black candidate with this much cross over appeal, too.

They are both running against a lot of history.

[Tom W.]

Jim - from your lips....they need the style points, and who does it benefit to put 'em on?

Mike - I hear ya. Which is why I'd love to see Obama as the veep, no kidding around, with a real portfolio of policy. Imagine the party strength, the progressive policy strength we could develop.

[Judith]

Thank you so much for this post. Please keep dropping notes of sanity into the mix.

I dont watch the cable shows and when I saw the clip of David Shuster being an absolute pig I was livid and was glad I had contributed to Clinton twice in the past week.

Not sure about you comment above re Obama. I like him, but aside from the imagery I am unconvinced he is the right person for her to choose.

Best - Judith

[Mike P]

One thing I'd like to add...I'm an Obama guy but Matthews, Shuster and the rest need to put a sock in it. I can totally see why this kind of crap would make someone either want to a) contribute to Hillary b) vote for her or c) both.

Tom, I wish we could see a "dream ticket" but I don't think it will happen. But stranger things have happened. What, I do wonder about though is if the candidate who does not get the nomination could possibly be a cabinet member? I think this is more likely if Clinton is the nominee, but it's interesting. Obama at Justice? Does that weaken him if he decides to run again at some point? I don't know.

[bruce b.]

I will keep saying this until my fingers can no longer type: they NEED each other's constituencies. WITHOUT the strength of the other, each of them stands a chance of losing to McCain. WITH the two sets of constituencies, each formidable in their own right, we have a possible landslide election, what is called a realignment election.

If anyone out there knows how to really bring the two constituencies together without them running as a ticket, please let me know.

[goldberry]

Oh Yeah! We have been activated. I'm pimping my own diary on the subject here:
Hillary Breaks Down the Fourth Wall and Reaps Big Rewards

We little pro-Clinton blogs are out there and ready to help.

[SCDelMonte]

Thanks, Tom. I needed that! I do not want to be preached at; I want to be listened to...by a bright, dedicated and experienced president.
HILLARY IS THE CHANGE AMERICA NEEDS!

[Tom K]

*If anyone out there knows how to really bring the two constituencies together without them running as a ticket, please let me know.*

I know, Bruce. But I'm not telling. (One hint -- it may involve preventing Tom W from blogging 'till after the convention).

[Tom W.]

Quite the contrary Tom - four out of five progressives agree - I'm good for democracy!

[BDB]

Nice thoughts and I totally agree about Mark Penn. Repeat after me, Hillary, Ann Lewis, Ann Lewis. Heh.

[Jerry Hooble]

quiet base = silent majority?

[wwolfe]

I had a hard time making up my mind before California's primary last Tuesday. As a lifelong Democrat, I was in the unique and happy position of having two - count 'em, two! - good candidates from which to choose. Then the LA Weekly, our local lefty paper, had their political writer write a thinkpiece on Obama, in which he described Clinton as "shriveled" and her supporters as "geriatrics." This, by the way, was the second straight piece in which this writer used that same word, "shriveled," to describe Clinton. I can't say for certain that this last little bit of nastiness made up my mind, but I know I haven't stopped shaking my head over it yet. And this is from the left! I can't imagine - and don't want to - what the Hillary haters on the far right are saying.