Edwards, Obama and Richardson...Where is Hillary??
Howard Dean in many ways brought the Democratic Party back to life. Although others share in the 2005 and 2006 success stories, Howard Dean in 2004 recreated the Democratic grassroots and since then has forged an alliance between progressives and moderates that has been winning big. He did this not by creating a rival force to the Democratic Party the way Nader did. He created a force WITHIN the party that led him to the head of the DNC. And under him the Democratic Party, with help from Rahm, Pelosi and Schumer, among others, has prospered.
Democracy for America was one piece of Howard Dean's revitalization of the Democratic Party. It brought back into the party thousands of activists who had lost faith with the system. It has focused people not only on national issues, but on LOCAl issues, events and campaigns, revitalizing the grassroots from bottom to top. DFA, along with groups like Progressive Majority and MoveOn.org, has given progressives ways of becoming a part of the political process without having to compromise their independence and ideals.
Three Presidential candidates have recognized the importance of Democracy for America and the new direction it represents. These three candidates are John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson. These three candidates recognize the importance of the grassroots and of more independent, more progressive movements within the Democratic Party. Even Bill Richardson, a moderate on many issues, recognizes the importance of the progressive, more independent grassroots.
These three candidates responded to questions from Democray for America and made video statements for the members of DFA. Here are their video statements:
All three make excellent points and are well worth my consideration for support. But there is a glaring absence here. Where is Hillary? Hillary Clinton is ignoring the very developments within the Democratic Party that has been such a success in 2005 and 2006, the developments that reopens the party to more independent-minded, more progressive activists. Why did Hillary shun Democracy for America?
In the end, Hillary may be our candidate and she, like Edwards, Richardson and Obama, would make a good President. But it bodes ill when one of our major candidates fails to recognize the fundamental shifts within our Party that led to such success in 2006.
I am not yet advocating for any one of these four candidates. I would be happy with any of them, though Hillary's lack of appreciation of the progressive grassroots makes it impossible for me to support her in the primary. In the spirit of progress in 2008, though, offer this Act Blue site which will help whoever our nominee is to win November 2008. Please donate! For those who want to support the grassroots rather than a candidate, I urge a donation to Democracy for America.
Location
No
As usual, no. I am expecting respect from a candidate who wants my vote. I am expecting a candidate to recognize the changing political terrain. I am expecting a candidate to recognize the great success of the last couple of years.
When I see a candidate ignore changing political lanscapes, ignore what has been working in favor of what didn't work, and a lack of resepct for me and my political compatriots from someone who wants our vote, then it raises an eyebrow.
But if you are okay with a politician sticking with what didn't work on a national level and disrespecting her constituents and possible supporters, that is your right.
- reply
- 0 points
I think Hillary will respond
I think Hillary will respond to DFA in good time. Remember it is early in the campaign and there is no hurry. She may have wanted to wait until the other candidates made their statements, so that she knows exactly what they all said and can make her own case in the most informed manner. This is a logical thing for her to do because she is the frontrunner, and it is fair to assume that if she put her response up first, that other candidates would use their responses to attack her either openly or in an implied manner. Btw, Kucinich just sent his in, which you did not mention.
This does bring up the question though of whether or how the netroots is evolving into yet another powerful special interest group. Just as the NRA wants republican and other like minded candidates to say "how loud?" when they are asked to bark, some netroots groups are starting to do the same thing. When I saw the blistering, relentless pressure put on Hillary for months by Markos and others for her to apologize for her Iraq vote, I got the sense that this wasn't just about an apology over the war. It was about demands for respect, about wanting an act of ass kissing to show appreciation for the new power order. If the mods on Daily Kos or Progressive Majority say "jump!", is the proper response for a progressive candidate to make up their own minds and do what they think is right or is the proper response to say "how high sir?"
It was I think in a way a test of power. It was Markos and others saying, "if we got Edwards to apologize, and get Hillary to apologize, we'll really be strutting our stuff. We'll REALLY get respect!"
I think Hillary and her people probably concluded that she couldn't apologize for that vote, without being roasted the following year in the general for pandering to special interests. You can be a progressive without going to all the meetings and towing all the lines.
Back in the 80's, we all learned the dangers of special interest groups getting control of candidates and their agendas, to the detriment of anyone who wasn't in those groups. On the left it was Labor and women's groups for instance, on the right it was the NRA and the Moral Majority. Is the netroots, as it becomes more organized and demands more mainstream respect, evolving into its own niche special interest? This is the feeling I get particularly when I read stuff like the long list Liza posted itemizing things using words like 'we' and 'you' and here's what 'we' want .etc If so, it is counterproductive. Voters, particularly general election voters, want INDEPENDENT minded candidates, those who have not constantly gone out of their way to kiss one group of voters' asses and not others. They want candidates who will think for themselves and not take positions, or apologize for past positions, simply because Markos or ten thousand other bloggers tell them to do so.
I have been in DFA since the beginning, but I don't regard a candidate bowing before that group, or any other group I'm in or support, to be some kind of pre-requisite for my support. I am not looking to have my ass kissed, and I am not requiring some public show of respect. I will not base my support of Hillary or any other candidate on whether he/she posts something on the DFA site, or goes on Daily Kos and grovels. What are you are asking for, in insisting Hillary or any other candidate go to this or that site, is symbolism. What we need to ask for in all candidates is substance and independence.