So, a number of bloggers have commented upon Hillary Clinton's dislike of MoveOn and, perhaps, the progressive movement in general. The quote is politically damaging, to be sure, although I'm not sure this qualifies as news. Was there ever any doubt that Clinton wasn't exactly wild about the party's progressive wing? After all, they're so mean and angry, right? They make it so hard for politicians like Hillary Clinton to make the sort of compromises that are politically necessary, right? They just don't get how the world of politics works.
I'm willing to concede that these groups are big-time promoters of a liberal vision for America, and the Liebermans of the world would just as soon not have that. But why did such institutions--MoveOn, the blogosphere, etc.--come into existence and stay relevant? The answer: largely because establishment Democrats like Hillary Clinton figured they could triangulate to the center on a host of issues without having to answer for it. It may very well have been politically necessary to make such moves, but after a point it became apparent that the Clintons were simply not very good shepherds of a progressive vision of any sort, and these institutions sprang up because the left wanted groups that would apply pressure on behalf of their interests. Bill Clinton's presidency was popular among most folks, but plenty of liberals felt that they had been given short shrift so that Clinton's approval ratings could remain stratospheric, and after things like DOMA, Telecom Deregulation and the DMCA--ultraconservative legislation that was (often enthusiastically) signed by Clinton--liberals were tired of voting for a softer version of conservatism (or "Republican-lite", as the cliche goes).
So it is unsurprising that Clinton doesn't like these folks. She is possessed of deeply centrist instincts and she undoubtedly wants to be free to pursue policy goals without being hounded by the left flank. It's understandable. But that she doesn't understand the raison d'etre for this movement reveals that she's, yes, out of touch with her own base. She's reinvented herself as the champion of the working class, but she needs MoveOn way more than they need her, and her (successful) attempts to polarize the Democratic Party into an us-versus-them, snobs vs. slobs contest is pretty silly to begin with. This is not a general election, and we're all on the same team. I suppose you go with what you know in these sorts of situations--she's comfortable playing the Rove game, and that's what she's done. Clinton seems to be too comfortable attacking liberals, overtly and convertly--these are the people she's surrounded herself with (like Mark Penn), and I suspect the sum total of her reasons for believing Barack Obama unelectable are that he's liberal. Clinton still believes that you have to attack the left in order to win--that you still have to run the DLC/New Dem playbook and provide enough Sistah Souljah moments to make sure that people know you're not one of those liberals. This is her campaign. It's one of many reasons I do not support her, in addition to a palpable character (and specifically honesty) deficit, nonexistent management skills, and a lack of charisma and political talent in general. Also, I happen to be a liberal, and she clearly happens not to be. She'd be better than McCain by a long shot but let's not pretend that the left would be a full partner at the table were Clinton to be the nominee.
