Hating The Base

Y'know, I started thinking that maybe I'm wrong; maybe Hillary really is a feminist in some form that I might recognise, maybe she really is to the left of her husband & maybe she really has been biding her time until she can govern from the left. Fat chance.

Today, I saw this story on Aravosis' AMERICABlog:
Hillary Says Black Voters & Democratic Activists "Don't Matter"
Original CNN Story

I know I'm stating the obvious, but the people that she's discounting are the Democratic Party base. Does she think that she can win the nomination with just white women over 50 voting for her? It surprises me that she'd be so open about Establishment disdain for the party's base.

"These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."

Clinton has publicly dismissed the caucus voting system since before Super Tuesday, seeking to lower expectations heading into a series of contests that played to Obama's advantage. His campaign features what many consider to be a stronger and more dedicated grassroots organization than Clinton's.

Noting that "my husband never did well in caucus states either," Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."

Although I figure Obama's been bought, it does seem that he's used his organizing experience to build a fledgling movement which is far closer to what Howard Dean tried to do than the usual swing-state strategy used by Clinton, Gore, Kerry & now, Hillary. What strikes me is that he's putting together a coalition that's primarily people younger than 50, well-educated people, leftist rather than centrist, African-American, more service unions than trade unions, more & more Catholics, etc. In other words, very similar in composition to the disenchanted party members in 1968 - the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, SNCC, SDS, hippies, professors, etc, but greatly evolved from where it was in '68. Makes me wonder how many of those '68 dissidents are Obama supporters today.

The top of the party doesn't want a brokered convention - they claim it would alienate the swing voters into voting Republican. However, convention rules allow party elites (aka Super Delegates), to throw their votes to Hillary and bypass any sort of brokering that could lead to an Obama nomination. I imagine they assumed they could get away with it if the need arose, as long as the delegate count was relatively close. Problem is, we're now post-Election 2000, so the party's base is far less trusting of official vote counts & potentially far more resistant to top-down chicanery. I suppose it's possible that past Rules Committees were too short-sighted to plan for a scenario in which an insurgent candidate got this far, although that seems unlikely. Given that the Super Delegate scam was put into place after the Chicago '68 disaster, maybe they just figured that the party base could always be prevented from forming working coalitions.

The New York senator went out of her way to say she was "absolutely" looking forward to the Ohio and Texas primaries in March, where she believes voters are more receptive to her bread-and-butter message.

She also downplayed many of Obama's Super Tuesday victories, describing them as states that Democrats should not expect to win in November.

"It is highly unlikely we will win Alaska or North Dakota or Idaho or Nebraska," she said, naming several of Obama's red state wins.

It suggests to me that Hillary is sending a message to the Establishment (her bankrollers), that now is the time to close ranks and make sure the remaining large states go her way, before it gets to the convention. It'll be interesting to see what goes down in the remaining large-ish primary states, especially Ohio and Texas, where we know for a fact that Republicans have strong machines in place. Will Bill Clinton call in a favour from his pal Poppy Bush?

One way or another, I'm hoping the Democratic Convention makes the Superbowl look like a high school track meet. The godsquad figured out how to take control of the GOP, it's about the time the Democratic left took control - and unlike the Republicans, the more public, the better.

Update: Ah ha! Proof that I'm not completely full of crap. Seems some of those irrelevant "Red States" that Hillary discounted aren't too pleased with her assertions.

"Red State" Democrats Dispute Clinton's Spin

On Monday, the former first lady went a step further saying that it would take a "tsunami change in America," for Democrats to carry some of Obama's red states. "It's just not going to happen," she told ABC7 and Politico.

The premise of the argument was disputed by Democratic officials from several of those states, who say the landscape is ripe for the party to make inroads, and see the strategy of writing off the "red states" as antiquated...

"I think a lot of folks here have seen the failed policies of the Bush administration time and again and they are getting tired of this country not moving in a positive direction," said Rick Gion, communications director of the North Dakota Democratic Party. "If there was a year that North Dakotans would go for Democrats this would be one of the best ones."

"We've had Democratic governors over the years. We've had Democratic legislatures. We've had a number of Democratic leaders elected to office," said Kay Brown, communications director for the Alaska Democratic Party. "Certainly it is possible [for a Democratic presidential candidate to win]. I think the Alaska is more closely divide then what you see in Congress."

Fifty States vs. Swing States