Markos Misunderestimates Hillary

In a major breakthrough for the blogosphere, Markos Moulitsas (a.k.a. Kos) challenged Hillary Clinton's presidential odds on the op ed page of the Pentagon Post.

Hillary Clinton: Too Much of a Clinton Democrat?

Hillary Clinton leads her Democratic rivals in the polls and in fundraising. Unfortunately, however, the New York senator is part of a failed Democratic Party establishment -- led by her husband -- that enabled the George W. Bush presidency and the Republican majorities, and all the havoc they have wreaked at home and abroad.

Markos is eager to take on that "failed Democratic Party establishment" to prove the collective wisdom of the netroots is smarter than the mercenary Beltway consultants. He doesn't have a candidate yet, but praises former Gov. Mark Warner and Sen. Russell Feingold.

His model for an anti-establishment campaign is of course Howard Dean.

But the netroots -- the far-flung collection of grassroots political activists organizing online -- proved to be a different world, one unencumbered by Washington's conventional wisdom. Even as the establishment mocked Dean and his supporters ("like a scene out of the 'Star Wars' cantina," laughed a rival campaign aide), his army of hyper-motivated supporters organized across all 50 states. This movement exploded onto the national scene when Dean began reporting dramatically higher fundraising numbers than his opponents. Had Kerry not lent himself millions to reach the Iowa caucuses, and had Dean not been so green a candidate, Dean probably would have been the nominee.

Certainly Dean ran an impressive campaign, thanks to the incredible energy of the netroots. But why did Dean tank in Iowa? It wasn't because of Kerry's money - Dean had plenty. It was because the political culture of Iowa Democrats had nothing to do with the emerging progressive netroots in 2004.

Markos' analysis hinges on his "insider-outsider" framework. It reflects and expresses the frustration of super-smart strategists like Markos and his allies outside the Beltway who have never had the chance to run a national campaign against the Republicans - but are certain they would win if they had that chance.

But Democratic voters in Iowa don't divide the world into "inside" and "outside." Why would they? Iowa voters have the luxury of actually meeting the candidates and discussing substantive issues with them. They don't need to deal in categories and abstractions.

When the caucuses finally roll around, Iowans go through a highly-interactive communal process to choose their candidate. While some are driven by single issues or personal connections, the collective process usually results in the choice of the Democrat Iowans believe has the all-around qualities that will make him or her most attractive to the majority of American voters, non-Democrats included.

In 2004, they saw qualities of character in Kerry - including his military decorations in a war-year election - that they simply didn't see in Howard Dean. Given a choice between "exciting new" and "strong old," they chose the latter.

So how will this apply in 2008? If nothing radical happens between now and 2008, Hillary will enter Iowa as the frontrunner. Since her roots are in Illinois and Arkansas, she will have no problem connecting with Iowa Democrats. Even Markos admits, "In person, Clinton is one of the warmest politicians I've ever met," so she will win votes everywhere she goes. 

What could possibly stop her? Markos cites her organization:

her advisers have stripped what personality she has, hiding it from the public. Some of that may be a product of her team's legendary paranoia, somewhat understandable given the knives out for her. But what remains is a heartless, passionless machine, surrounded by the very people who ground down the activist base in the 1990s and have continued to hold the party's grassroots in utter contempt. The operation is rudderless, without any sign of significant leadership.

That's awfully harsh. Hillary's team is led by some of the most capable Democratic operatives, people like Harold Ickes, Ann Lewis, Mandy Grunwald, Mark Penn, and Howard Wolfson. They have been through many presidential campaigns, including two winning campaigns. If there is no "sign of significant leadership," it's because they have chosen to keep themselves out of the papers to let Hillary make her own headlines - on her own schedule.

But did this team "[grind] down the activist base in the 1990s"? That's an important question. Bill Clinton didn't seek the support of the activist base in 1992 - Jerry Brown did. But Brown was painted as flaky by the Corporate Media, and Clinton cultivated the party elite and raised enough money to beat him.

The real struggle with the activist base was Hillary's health care campaign of 1993-1994, which produced a 1000-page legislative monstrosity that protected the parasitic insurance industry, rather than eliminating it through a single-payer plan. That plan alienated the activist base, which stayed home in the 1994 midterm elections, allowing Newt Gingrich's Republican Revolutionaries to seize Congress. Hillary then disappeared from view, and Bill Clinton played defense until the day he left office - and a few weeks afterwards, thanks to Marc Rich.

As a Senator, Hillary has continued to defy progressive activists. She strongly supported the Iraq War, and still refuses to call it a mistake. She has been AWOL on Russ Feingold's Censure Resolution on the NSA wiretapping scandal. She opposed the Alito filibuster until her phones were swamped. Most ominously, she has been singing AIPAC's dangerous tune on Iran, which could lead to World War III.

So unless she changes her stripes, Hillary will run for President just as Bill did, by sticking to the center and ignoring the progressive base. But will that doom her campaign as Markos argues?

Money and star power go a long way, but the netroots is now many times larger than it was only three years ago, and we have attractive alternatives to back (and fund), such as former governor Mark W. Warner and Sen. Russell Feingold.

Just as we crazy political junkies glimpsed the viability of the candidacy of an obscure governor from a small New England state three years ago, today we regard Hillary Clinton's candidacy as anything but inevitable. Her obstacles are big, and from this vantage point, possibly insurmountable.

The only "insurmountable" obstacles to Hillary's campaign at this moment would be (1) support for a war with Iran, (2) a hardening perception that too many Americans hate her to make her electable, or (3) a primary challenge from a candidate who could truly unite the progressive base.

Markos seems to be arguing for obstacle #3, and cites two candidates that he seems interested in uniting around. But an anti-Hillary strategy will only work if there is one progressive alternative.

That didn't happen in 2004, because a lot of progressives (myself included) supported Dennis Kucinich over netroots favorite Howard Dean. We supported Kucinich because he led the opposition to the Iraq War long before anyone outside Vermont had even heard of Dean, and he continued to oppose the war after the bombs started falling in March 2003, while Howard Dean tried to shift away from his earlier outright opposition.

Could it happen in 2008? Markos' first suggestion is Mark Warner. While he's popular with technology enthusiasts, his positions on hot-button national issues (Iraq, Iran, NSA wiretapping, etc.) are completely unknown, and he is perceived (perhaps wrongly) as a centrist DLC-type. At this stage, it's hard to see progressives uniting behind him.

Russ Feingold has a better shot at uniting progressives, and he has been making many smart moves, both in terms of policy (opposing the Patriot Act, introducing the Censure Resolution) and direct outreach to progressive bloggers. But many progressives are skeptical, remembering Feingold's decisive vote for John Ashcroft in 2001 and his rapid embrace of John Roberts in 2005.

So it's odd that the one candidate who really could unite progressives isn't mentioned by Markos at all.

His name is Al Gore, and he looks fit and ready to rumble. He has given several tremendous speeches in recent years, and his new film on global warming is getting rave reviews. With gas prices over $3, his visionary thinking on energy alternatives couldn't be more timely. And with Bush's approval ratings nearing 30%, the minority of Americans who opposed Gore in 2000 probably realize they made a mistake - one they shouldn't repeat if they get the chance.

So why isn't Gore on Markos' short list? Probably because he doesn't think Gore is running. Will Gore run? Many of us hope so - from the bottom of our hearts.

Update 1: Matt Stoller is also a Kos-skeptic:

it is not clear, and the progressive movement has not yet demonstrated, that we are worth taking seriously.  We have not turned out our vote.  We lay down for candidates like Bob Casey.  We do not fund our own.   I mean, Moveon and DFA haven't even come in for Ned Lamont in Connecticut.

We are an immature movement, and Hillary Clinton is making a bet that we are not yet at a point where we matter.  Is that a good bet?  I'm not sure.  My guess is that she will be able to get through the primaries without progressives,

I pretty much agree with Matt up to this point.

but it will be difficult for her to draw upon us when she is swift-boated in the General election campaign.  After years of not reaching out, and possibly a bunch of Sista Souljah moments (she is paying attention to Bill's advice, after all), bloggers are not necessarily going to want to defend her from salacious attacks inevitably involving Bill and their marriage.  Then again, it's quite possible that I'm wrong, and that the partisan juices will flow freely as they did in 2004, and we'll tapdance on command for Hillary Clinton.  That's what she's banking on.  I mean we did it for her husband, we're doing it for Bob Casey, and we're worshipping Harry Reid..

Here I think Matt is overly pessimistic - both about Hillary and about progressives. I don't think Hillary will pull any "Sista Souljahs" because she will need to unite Democrats and progressives after the primaries in order to win the general election. Bill Clinton ran in a very different general election in 1992 - a 3-way race where Bushdaddy was under attack both from the right (Pat Buchanan) and the center (Ross Perot). Bill was a little-known longshot and he had the opportunity to win votes across the spectrum. I expect 2008 to be more like 2004 - a straight-up Democrat v. Republican, left-center v. right campaign. Hillary is smart enough to know that she's not going to win any votes in Limbaughland, so she will need all wings of the Democratic Party to support her.

Of course, if Hillary does pull a "Sista Souljah" in the primaries, the progressive blogosphere will go ballistic and rally around the leading anti-Hillary candidate, which could change the outcome of the primaries.