Why The Netroots Aren’t Rejoicing Over Obama’s Caucus Win
It finally happened. The droves of young voters motivated to ‘change’
So what gives? Considering the deep mistrust between Hillary Clinton and the netroots, why isn’t Obama’s victory a reason to rejoice? The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder provided a clue when analyzing Obama’s closing message to
But Obama’s troubled history with netroots has a longer history. Obama once insinuated that Daily Kos was boring, and many in the community feel as though he has triangulated on
The Krugman dust up is particularly illuminating because Krugman’s broader criticism of Obama (that his “different kind of politics” are really just “Big Table Fantasies”) hits on a core belief of the modern progressive movement: Fundamental change can’t be accomplished by a politician who shuns partisanship. Open Left’s Chris Bowers writes: “If Obama really believes that he is somehow post-ideology, post-partisan, and capable of bringing contemporary Republicans to actually engage in real compromises over legislation in good faith, then I can’t help but think that, despite his background, he is oddly naïve.”
But Obama’s naiveté isn’t their deepest fear. As the Des Moines Register’s pre-caucus poll shows, the majority of Obama’s support comes from independents and Republicans, not registered Democrats. This is the progressive movement’s second worst nightmare: a Democratic President, elected by independents and moderates, who rhetorically rejected progressive elements to get elected. Ezra Klein blogged: “Obama’s comfort attacking liberals from the right is unsettling, and if he does win
And that’s why the progressive movement is wary of an Obama victory. They fear that an Obama win will be remembered as a victory for some kind of fuzzy Obama-ism founded on bipartisan compromise and not the first victory of what they hope will be an enduring progressive coalition.