The Online Left vs. Obama: They've Been In Hillary's Pocket All Along.
By Erick Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | Netroots — Comments (36) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
By and large, the online left hates Obama. It's one of the underreported ironies of this political season. Obama has more in common with the netroots than Hillary. He's to the left of her on the war, on corporate issues, on social welfare issues – even on life issues Obama appears to the left of Hillary. But the online left does not like him.
There are a few reasons for this. For one, Obama is no Ned Lamont. He's a dazzling, rising star of the left, but unlike Lamont, Obama is not a product of the online left. He has, in fact, done it on his own. Obama has had a brilliant online operation. His online fundraising was Dean'esque without Joe Trippi's involvement. His website and Web 2.0 strategy has been dazzling without Jerome Armstrong's involvement. His ability to get people fired up and directed in a particular direction has been stellar without Kos's involvement. In fact, Obama's relations with bloggers have been frosty and he hasn't spent much time stroking their egos.
Obama is, by and large, a testament that the online movement remains ancillary to the cause.
There is another reason too, and one we should pay attention to.
Read on . . .
The online left is interested, more than anything else, in the accumulation of power in their hands. The shallowness of Obama on policy issues is right at home with this, but Obama actually tries to play to the center. He talks too nicely about bipartisanship. The same argument the right frequently makes in criticizing McCain — that he's too eager to work across the aisle — is also a criticism the left has of Obama.
In other words, whether you realize it or not, the online left has been in bed with Hillary Clinton for a good long while, and they have a vested interest in defeating Obama. If Obama is defeated, they can maintain the fiction a little longer that the online movement is a vital part of the cause.1
Let's look at a few of their recent arguments:
First, the online left is beginning to agitate for Michigan and Florida to be seated at the convention. This does nothing but help Hillary. It's also based on shoddy thinking. And this should be a lot of fun. It puts the online left in bed with Jesse Jackson and against Al Sharpton. It also puts them against the bulk of black voters within the Democratic party. But considering the demographics of the online left, that shouldn't be too surprising.
Second, the online left has decided that Obama is … wait for it … too far left to win. He is, they argue, George McGovern. This is actually the best argument, given Obama's total failure to win in swing states and primaries — he is the Mike Huckabee of the Democratic Party, needing caucuses to win. I suspect it'll also be the argument we hear them push more and more.
Lastly, and some of you will totally get the irony in this one (others won't), Armando is accusing Obama of being sexist and misogynist. Why? Because Obama said, of Hillary's attacks,
I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.
"Periodically" … "feeling down"… it's a good thing he didn't use the word "bloated" or the New York Nags would fire bomb him. Clearly, Armando knows his misogyny and we should bow down before his abilities to pick up PMS references.
Unfortunately for the left, time is running out. Obama is winning. He is advancing. They are going to have to unleash hell on Obama now to hurt him. And they are going to have to pressure superdelegates to go with Hillary, despite Obama thus far getting the popular vote. I wonder if Al Gore will support that argument.
Many Republicans, including me, have thought all along that we were screwed this year. More and more, it's looking like the Democrats may rescue us from our hopelessness and screw themselves in the process.
We should continue to root for the Ned Lamont left online left.
-
The righty netroots see themselves as part of a larger, older conservative movement and seek to advance the cause of the movement in getting conservative policy enacted. The lefty nutroots see themselves (as movements of the Left always do) as something new and revolutionary, and because they see themselves as the important part, they are all about accumulating their own power and influence even at the expense of people who otherwise agree with them.
↩
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Diebold Strikes Again — Comments (15) »
The Online Left vs. Obama: They've Been In Hillary's Pocket All Along. 36 Comments (0 topical, 36 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
From the fifth paragraph:
He talks too nicely about bipartisanship. The same argument the right frequently makes in criticizing McCain — that he's too eager to work across the aisle — is also a criticism the left has of Obama.
I didn't mean to imply that you never got to that point, only that that was the point that I was waiting to hear. I did see the above paragraph, and agree wholeheartedly.
One of life's great pleasures is seeing the nutroots denied whatever it is they think they're entitled to. Nut Lamont's defeat was a decadent, candied, chocolate-covered pleasure of the first order. It is a similar thrill to see them floundering about the primaries.
absentee
check out Americablog if you want to see the Online Left that is supportive of Senator Obama. The supporters of Senator Clinton are often in a foaming mouth froth over that blogs tendency to post factual reports that do not favor the former first lady. Quite a sight to behold, actually, that the same individuals who vehemently complained about the "30%" that supported Bush, are acting the same exact way towards Senator Clinton.
Just goes to show - the extreme left and the extreme right are the same - insane.
I'm not sure of whom the nebulous "online left" consists, but I'm pretty sure that it ought to include the Great Orange Satan himself. I'm not sure about the rules here for linking through to kos, but a quick glance at any comment thread over there makes it pretty clear for whom 90% of the folks over there are rooting, and it ain't Hillary. In addition, Huff Po is hardly a haven of anti-Obama fervor, although there are more Hillary supporters there than kos (I don't believe it's even a majority there, though).
A more accurate description would be that Matt Stoller doesn't like Obama and Armando criticized him for a comment. There's hardly a netroots wave of opposition to him. In fact, his adoption of kos' patented "50-state strategy" sways a lot of the netroots toward him.
I know that the "online right" (and talk radio) is a bit upset with having to support McCain or sit out, and it would be nice if the left had a similar problem. They just don't, though.
Kos, TalkLeft, Stoller, Armstrong, Hamsher, Atrios -- all the big names are down on Obama.
Kos is as pro-Obama as they come (cf. his post "I voted for Obama, Hence I Don't Matter" where he both says he voted for Obama and criticizes Hillary).
At TalkLeft, Jeralyn tends to cheerlead Hillary while BTD tends to root for Obama.
Armstrong isn't "anti-Clinton," but he's hardly "anti-Obama" either, same goes for Hamshire.
Atrios has gone out of his way not to even talk about the primary. A while back he criticized Obama for adopting what he perceived as a right-wing "frame" when it came to SS, but that's all the criticism I've seen from over there.
Like I said, Stoller doesn't like Obama. Neither does Krugman (but I don't think he counts as part of the "online" left).
If most of the "online left" has a preference for one candidate or the other, it's Obama, not Hillary. They dislike her initial support of the Iraq War and a lot of the things that happened under Bill's presidency (NAFTA, Welfare Reform, etc.).
Kossacks used to be all over Edwards. Obama was running a decent second, and Hillary never drew much support there. Since Edwards dropped out, the site has swung hard for Obama.
I haven't figured out the Krugman-Obama spat. More of it seemed to come from Krugman (how many columns harping on "no mandates"?). But I don't get his motives, unless he's angling for a spot in Clinton's cabinet or something.
peace,
lilnev
I disagree. I read a lot online, right and left, but maybe you and I don't read the same things. I think there has been a lot of online support of Obama on the left, especially early on. I do think there has been a shift, of late, toward Clinton. To me, that seems to be a reflection of the online left's desire to support the underdog. Clinton is now and has been for a while, the underdog in this race. Obama is an avalanche happening in slow motion. The perception is that it's going to happen no matter what you do.
Now, admittedly, I'm not in the business of online blogging. I don't look at these sites in the same competitive way and maybe there's a dimension that I'm missing. But from where I sit, the online left is broad enough that you can find anything you are looking for. Much too broad to say it's always been in Clinton's pocket.
Billary has imploded over the last month or so, from BJ Bill's racially-charged comments in South Carolina to strategist Mark Penn's spectacular gaffes to HRC's attempts to seat Florida and Michigan delegates (remember that no one campaigned there, and under DNC rules, they got zero) and the latest reports that she is trying to poach Obama's pledged delegates, her act is wearing thin among the netroots.
The HRC support out there is weakening, and unless Obama makes a spectacular gaffe or two, she may not even be around to cause trouble at the convention.
But from everything I've read, Obama has had a tremendous amount of online support. Take a look at digg.com, one of the more massive link sites. Two of the top 10 dugg sites are pro-Obama. None are against. And for the last several weeks (since Super Tuesday or so), it's been constantly like that, with anywhere from 1-5 sites in the top 10 singing the praises of Obama.
The Daily Kos has been amazingly pro-Obama as well. Take a look at the diaries on the right hand side. Regularly and consistently filled with yay-Obama stuff.
Online fundraising, lots of online pro-Obama information. Like someone above said, the internet is pretty big. If you look selectively, you can identify tons of pro-Hillary stuff out there, but it's certainly not to the exclusion of Obama support online, and definitely not sufficient to say that the "Online Left" is in Hillary's pocket.
Obama has a lot of fans amongst the KosKidz, as a matter of fact he and Edwards were their top candidates. If you take a walk through their filth of diaries you'll find many, many who despise Hillary. Americablog and CrooksandLiars, as well as Firedoglake and especially the Huffington Post where Arianna has a pathological hatred of all things Clinton, also seems to be very pro Obama as does Air America, who mostly loved Edwards until he left the race to take care of his hair. I would say that your conclusions are a 180 of the actual truth, and that is the majority of online bloggers are with Obama and against Hillary.
"Glory is not a conceit. It is not a decoration for valor. Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely and who rely on you in return."-Senator McCain
I'm a liberal lurker so i usually don't post on this site. However, I have to wonder what planet you've been on, Erik. I read a lot of lefty sites and mydd is the only one that I can think of that has an obvious pro-Hillary format. Don't you have enough to worry about without adding liberal websites to your list?
Although, considering that you've stated that the main reason liberals have more popular blogs is because they have free time due to their abortions while conservatives have families, I'm not sure too many people outside this small community would take you seriously.
Considering the level of political insight and wit you've been holding back from us. Please, do engage more!
conservatives are busy making money to feed the tax monster while lots of liberal are perpetual students, work in government(therefore lots of free time) or are on welfare.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Here are links to the most recent kos polls that I could find:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/24/112929/909
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/30/122136/480
Hillary gets 9% and 11%
Obama jumps to 76% after Edwards drops out
more detailed version http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/31/13759/3482/758/446724
Hilldog has yet to break 11%
This is all news to the online left, considering that Obama pulled in 76% in the last DailyKos straw poll and 70% in MoveOn's endorsement poll. If a three-to-one margin in two of the online left's biggest arenas isn't support, I don't know what is. This line of attack is actually pretty funny, considering the huge rift that actually does exist between the online right and the Republican nominee.
The footnote was my favorite part though:
The righty netroots see themselves as part of a larger, older conservative movement and seek to advance the cause of the movement in getting conservative policy enacted. The lefty nutroots see themselves (as movements of the Left always do) as something new and revolutionary, and because they see themselves as the important part, they are all about accumulating their own power and influence even at the expense of people who otherwise agree with them.
Our motives are always pure and our enemies motives are dark and evil. Two minutes of hate, much?
If this is true, and all you care about it advancing the Conservative agenda without concern for personal recognition or aggrandizement, why doesn't everyone here take the 15 or so hours per week they spend on RedState and devote them to a more effective conservative group, like Heritage or AEI? Without pay or bylines of course. After all, it's for the cause.
Ya, I didn't think so.
There is a difference between the readers/users of online sites and the leadership of those same sites. The latter group is in Hillary's pocket, even though they take pains to stress otherwise.
If ever there was a time for the Netroots' big dogs to exert their influence, it would be now, and with respect to HilLIAR, they are definitely MIA. They don't care overmuch as to who wins, as long as their side wins; they don't have that much influence over the mob.
If things break for Obama, Clinton will be overwhelmed by the ensuing tsunami. She basically has to win Wisconsin today, or she's toast.
You just can't admit you were wrong, can you?
What's most interesting to me about this whole affair, however, is that the Clintonistas would even suggest the use of super delegates to subvert the will of the Democratic Party electorate. It betrays a lack of confidence in their candidate's electoral viability, even with a calendar that will become far more favorable to her in March, while seemingly confirming every right-wing charge that the Clintons place winning above all else, including principle.
That they would even suggest a tactic that would sunder the Democratic Party, kicking off a vicious and destructive civil war, tells me that like Bill in the 90s, when our majorities in Congress and all around the country were decimated and the party's base left to wither and die, Hillary will put her own interests above those of their party. And to me, there's no greater sin in Democratic politics than that.
So the Clinton campaign has graduated from saying that certain states don't matter, to saying certain voters don't matter, to now saying that the Democratic Party electorate doesn't matter.
To be clear, it's not that I'm surprised. It's just that I thought they'd be more subtle about it.
I mean, wow, it's like he is in love with her, or something.... Sheesh.
After all in a party of personalities rather than policies it is to be expected.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I do think there's a level of resentment among the leadership of the online left for the fact that Obama has done what he's done in spite of, and often in contest with, the gatekeepers of the netroots. The TNR article you link to reveals this pretty clearly:
'The relationship is frosty," explains Micah Sifry, cofounder of techPresident, a blog that focuses on the interaction between candidates and the Web. "At various points in the campaign, Obama has said or done things that have antagonized progressive bloggers"--from calling Social Security a "crisis" to criticizing New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. "I think his instincts are liberal, but his governing style may not be," says Open Left blogger Matt Stoller, adding that Obama's readiness to embrace conservatives and chastise his allies on the left have caused many bloggers to wonder how strongly he would fight for liberal priorities as president. "The point is," Stoller adds, "I'm not sure. And this has been accentuated by the fact that no one [from the campaign] is talking to us."
Indeed, despite the areas of obvious affinity between Obama and the netroots, there are also areas of significant disagreement. His campaign themes--unity, bipartisanship--grate on liberal bloggers frustrated at the perceived unwillingness of mainstream Democrats to stand up to the Republican Party on issues ranging from Iraq to the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance. "Our community tends to be filled with people who ... are largely skeptical that it's possible to reach across the aisle and get anything other than slapped for your efforts," Jane Hamsher, of the blog Firedoglake, told me.
In many ways, this parallels the relationships that many GOP leaders have with John McCain; Ann Coulter and James Dobson may refuse to vote for him, but their readers almost all will, because they don't share the relevant personal gripes.
In any case, I don't think that the testy relationship that the top tier of the netroots has with the new crew (really, an old crew of Daschle folks + organizers) is going to prevent the vast majority of Kossacks from giving and supporting Obama.
I think you are probably right, but I also think we must distinguish between the leadership and the readers. Were you and I to do X and our readers to do Y, the relevant RedState position would be, I would argue X, though a majority on that site are in favor of Y.
and vote for Obama in the TX primary. And I understand that regardless of whom you vote for with the Dems, you get a complimentary limo ride, a get-out-of-jail card for one financial indiscretion, immunity on any sex harrassment charges and free copies of Obama's heroic life story and "It Takes a Village". What's not to like?
On the GOP side, you get nothing with McCain (CFR ya know?) and some lukewarm blessing from Huckabee.
It's time to hang out with the Beautiful People!
And that is exactly what I intend to do.
Whatever the level of general online support for Obama, this thread on Talk Left that Erick linked is very illuminating regarding some of the online opposition to him:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/16/191657/271
I recommend particularly the comments of "Grandmother," an older Hillary supporter, and the debate that follows. Grandmother says:
"I started out admiring Obama and ended up supporting and voting for Hillary. I've always voted for the Democratic ticket regardless of the hapless candidates on the ticket. Last week I changed my voter registration to Independent. No longer will the Democratic Party be able to count on my dollars, time or vote. ... I will either write in HRC or vote for McCain in the G.E. if Obama is the Dem nominee."
The debate that follows is a weird mirror image of some threads on Redstate. Hillary supporters claim Obama insulted them and that they will never vote for him, even in the general election. Others reply that they must be mad to sit out the general election. A frequently played trump card is the Supreme Court. If McCain is allowed to become President, then he will appoint replacements for Stevens and Ginsberg, Roe v. Wade will be overturned, and the right to abortion will be imperiled. That, at any rate, is how many on the left view McCain.
I can see this election coming down to which party has more disenchanted voters not voting for their unwanted nominee.
In that case this election would be like 2000, when a few thousand disenchanted D's in Florida voted for Nader and gave the Presidency to Bush. Will a few thousand disenchanted R's in Ohio or Colorado hand the White House to Obama?
What is amazing is the groundswell of Democratic turnout, as compared to ours. In my caucus (I was committee chair), we had 42 votes, and not a single one for McCain. Paul had seven, and they are more likely than not to break Obama (they are issues voters, and the promise of another hundred wasted years in Iraq is not going to excite them). McCain offers nothing anyone out there wants (consider his position on immigration), and Hillary is the only hope for the GOP.
If Hillary wins, it's a toss-up; if Obama wins, it's a landslide -- the Dems are going to win the BosNYWash corridor and CA, and Obama has proven that he can win big in flyover-land.
"he is the Mike Huckabee of the Democratic Party, needing caucuses to win."
Romney needed caucuses to win, not Huckabee.
Loony site Moveon.org endorsed Barack Obama. The most popular loony left diary, Daily Kos, is overwhelmingly pro-Obama.
The Nation, DemocraticUnderground for the most part is pro-Obama.
At first they supported UFO-believer Dennis Kucinich. Then they went with Edwards, and then they jumped on the Obama bandwagon.
Obama is a liberal, but we are hurting our chances by painting him as an enemy of the left.
The Left-Wing Netroots DETESTS Hillary Clinton.
Until Edwards fell out of the race, the folks at Daily Kos were SOLIDLY behind him. They gravitated to Obama en masse, to the point where pro-Hilldebeest diaries are almost treated as troll diaries. This is proving to be true in exit polls, where Shrill only gets little old ladies and Hispanic voters seeking blanket amnesty for their extended families.
Trust me. They're not that clever.
Will they break for Billary in the general if they have to? For the most part, yes. Frankly, her opponent is only fit to be a spokesman for Metamucil (see "I did Metamucil with John McCain", at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/18/65434/2248/768/458910).
There's a lot of us without a viable candidate these days.
Reading through this, I kept waiting for you to get to the fact that the netroots hates him because he wants bipartisanship and talks about making nice with Republicans. The netroots wants to drive the Democrat party as far to the left as possible, something that I'm perfectly okay with.