Hillary has a netroots problem. Does it matter?
By David All, 05/11/2007 - 10:15am

Related links:

Let me disclose that I'm a Republican.

Sam Stein pens an op-ed in today's Politico on Hillary Clinton's "netroots" problem.

Two important nuggets which caught my eye include this stinger from MyDD's Matt Stoller:

Instead of being embraced by liberal blogs as the first serious woman presidential contender, Clinton has been labeled an “opportunist,” the candidate more interested in getting elected than in standing on principle. “Her model of doing politics is based on pandering to individual groups,” said MyDD’s Matt Stoller. He cited Clinton’s stance on Iran – “she’s giving cover to Bush’s strategy” – and her fundraiser with News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch as evidence that she’d rather triangulate than play the role of progressive.

The second zap comes from Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post:

“To most bloggers, authenticity is an important criterion. There is an allergic reaction to hypercautious politicians,” The Huffington Post’s Arianna Huffington wrote in an e-mail. “Hillary Clinton’s problem with the blogosphere is that she has been so calculating that you can smell it. Every thought has been processed through multiple channels in her and her consultants’ brains. It’s so fabricated.”

The question for this space is whether or not you think a Democratic Presidential candidate needs the support of the netroots to better connect with the Dem base and succeed on- and off-line.

Fellow techPresident contributor Zack Exley weighed in:

Even veterans of online politics caution against overvaluing the blogosphere’s significance. “Candidates have been obsessing about bloggers and ignoring their base,” said Zack Exley, director of online organizing and communications for the 2004 John Kerry campaign. “The candidates need to make a direct connection with their base and turn that base on and get the $100 million.”

As an outside observer of the netroots movement, my perception is that the base of the Democratic Party is increasingly being pulled to the Internet - and therefore to the liberal netroots movement. The "power" if you will, is transferring from traditional Democratic base supporters like unions to online activists. If it's not completely shifting, it's at least balancing even.

That being said, could a Democratic candidate actually make it through a Democratic Primary without the support of the netroots movement?

Tags: |
more from David All's blog | login or register to post comments

Maybe, maybe not

David--

Good question. My sense is that while Hillary is indeed the weakest of the leading Democratic candidates among netroots activists, the Democratic base online will mostly unify around whoever the party nominates.

As for making it through the primary...there are just too many variables at play to make a blanket statement.

By the way, I know most people who are political junkies obsess about such things as who the parties will nominate. Frankly the more interesting trend to me is in who the politicians have to answer to. That clearly is changing right now, in subtle ways yes, but in general to the detriment of old insiders and to the benefit of new networked outsiders.

Micah

By Micah L. Sifry at Fri, 05/11/2007 - 1:15pm | login or register to post comments

Netroots are growing

The growth of the netroots and the fact that there are many more over 40 than anyone suspects is a problem for Hillary. her low approval is coming not just from activists of the 20 something group but, from her own baby boomer group.
Some of the most vitriolic posts come from the older readers. male and female. All democrats. I think the dislike is stronger on the left than on the right.
And with so many people of all groups online and growing more and more everyday, this will cause a problem for Hillary in electability. I have posted on blogs that concidering the hate on the right, the not so excited of indies and half the democratic base refusing to vote for her, she would lose in the general.
She is riding high on the so called experience but, Clinton does not wear well. people are reminded of why they dislike after awhile. That is why she lost so much support before the debates. After them she got a bump from undecideds. This shows soft support.
The netroots dislike her for more than the war. Alot of the article was correct in the feelings towards hillary. She is concidered DLC corporate and phoney. Pandering. Republican lite. Nafta is held against her and especially with Penn as her closest advisor. Her throw back to the early 90s in her retoric and promise them whatever and outright lying. Being the ultimate insider. Her sins are very long. It's been discussed to do a Liebermann on her. Take her campaign down. Obama supporters and Edwards supporters joining forces to take her down.
She is very disliked and not trusted by the netroots and she needs them. They are the political junkies and they are the ones who actually vote in the primaries.

By dlake at Sat, 05/12/2007 - 1:07am | login or register to post comments

I have no doubt...

...that both the Republican and Democratic 'roots will support the candidate. Instead, I'm more interested in finding out if either party "needs" the 'roots.

I like your line of thinking with regard to who the politicians will have to answer to. That's worth an essay or a column Micah...

________________________________________
David All
The David All Group
http://davidallgroup.com
________________________________________

By David All at Sun, 05/13/2007 - 11:19pm | login or register to post comments



© 2008 Personal Democracy Forum | All Rights Reserved |