UPDATE: Don’t forget, Hillary on Letterman’s show tonight. Lots of good news too pollwise and endorsements.
Big Blog owners are beginning to unmask themselves. They are Naderites.
These Naderites, like Lord Nader himself, want egotistical personal power and let the common good be damned. These Naderites want Democrats to follow their lead to ruin. These Naderites are a self-absorbed bunch of losers who want Democrats to obey them.
Many good Democrats listen to these Naderite Big Bloggers unaware of their true intent. These Naderites, embedding themselves in Democratic ranks are PINOs only interested in personal aggrandizement. They pose as Democrats. They pose a real danger to Democrats. They must be fought.
In the 2000 election race, Naderites called Al Gore “Al Bore”. These Naderites claimed Al Gore and Democrats were no better than Republicans. These Naderites claimed that there were no differences between Democrats and Republicans.
These Naderites, due to their self-interested desire to hurt Democrats, inflicted George Bush on the country. These Naderites are up to their old tricks.
Much like the Satan in John Milton’s epic poem Paradise Lost, these Naderite Big Bloggers would rather “rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.”
One particularly foolish Naderite who conjures up idiotic scenarios regarding polls and how they spell doom for Hillary is Chris Bowers. Bowers has been plying his dishonest theories and mad interpretations of reality for a long time. Yesterday he unmasked himself as a twisted Naderite. Here is some of what the destructive clown wrote:
Back in the spring, I engaged in a few email conversations with a number of prominent pollsters and election analysts asking them what they thought of my Inflated Clinton Poll Theory (see here and here for more on the theory). In virtually every conversation, whether or not someone agreed with the theory, there was nearly universal agreement that Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers would not rise during the course of the campaign. The consensus was that, after fifteen years in the national focus, the Democratic primary and caucus electorate had already made up their minds on Hillary Clinton and thus, not unlike an incumbent, her current poll numbers represented her ceiling. This was actually a line I was telling people since at least June of 2006, when the very first Iowa poll was released showing John Edwards in the lead.
As Hillary’s popularity increased and was reflected in the polls, Bowers and his foolish theories (“Inflated Clinton Poll Theory”), which were not really theories but mad delusions, were recognized to be totally wrong. Even Bowers was forced to concede the incorrectness of his “Theory”.
Bower’s quickly concocted more, disguised as scientific, lunacies to undermine the very notion of genuine Hillary support by the voters. He posited four reasons for the impressive Hillary bloom reflected in the polls: (1) Bowers first decried the end of the “incumbent rule” whereby incumbents (Hillary) were in fact able to increase their poll numbers; (2) Bowers’ second reason which should tell him something but he is too dense to recognize it, is that Edwards and Obama have dropped in their favorability with Americans. Duh; (3) the third Bowers reason is what he terms “the right-wing stereotype of Hillary Clinton” was shown to be false when the public actually saw and met the real Hillary in action. Bowers of course is so dishonest he does not mention the Naderite stereotype of Hillary created by people like him.
Bowers then aims, at for him, the reason above all other reasons for Hillary’s popularity – where Naderite and right-wing stereotypes and ugliness meet: Bill Clinton.
Bowers demonstrates how popular Bill Clinton is with Democrats and how strong that tie of affection is. Bill Clinton is seen by Bowers and other Naderites (and the right-wing) as the reason Hillary rose in the polls in Iowa after their joint tour of the state. Note to these dolts: in a campaign the candidate is responsible for what happens. Hillary could have decided, as many pundits had advised, not to campaign with Bill Clinton. Hillary wisely choose to listen to Bill Clinton’s wise counsel. Even if the notion that Bill Clinton is the mastermind of the campaign, or Mark Penn, or Hillaryland, or whomever – the ultimate responsibility is Hillary’s. It is her campaign. Same is true with the Obama campaign. While we know that Axelrod has been a disaster for the Obama campaign – the ultimate responsibility is Obama’s – who appointed Axelrod and from whom Axelrod derives all his authority.
Bowers then states: “Bill Clinton might be the ultimate Democratic primary campaign weapon for any candidate.”
Having made his initial postulates Bowers then proceeds to even uglier Naderite assumptions: “Within the netroots, Hillary Clinton might have the highest unfavorable numbers of any Democratic candidate, but Bill Clinton has the highest very favorable numbers.” Bowers states that Hillary is unpopular with the “netroots” but does not define what he means by the “netroots”. Bowers relies for his conclusions on a worthless poll of self-selected respondents which is more than a year old – well before Hillary’s impressive debate performances. In other words, on a pure garbage poll more than a year old Bowers builds his latest Hate Hillary theory.
For the record, we here at Big Pink distinguish between the netroots (politically active people online) vs the Nutroots (politically self-interested Big Bloggers and their Naderite friends). The more than 1 million Hillary supporters online to us constitute the netroots as well as the supporters of many truly progressive organizations and other candidates, even Hillary opponents. The real netroots is comprised of more than that small cluster of Bowers’ friends which we appropriately call the Nutroots.
Continuing with the lunacy in a, let’s call it what it is, male chauvenist pig way – Bowers uttlerly dismisses Hillary as the main factor for the rise of Hillary. The Naderite writes as only a true Naderite proudly can:
“This is going to be particularly tricky for any non-Clinton candidate to overcome, especially during the final two weeks of the campaign when Bill will probably be by Hillary side the entire time. One strategy would be to openly take aim at the past, and at Bill Clinton’s record. The only candidate who seems to have waded into these waters so far is John Edwards:
“Small thinking and outdated answers aren’t the only problems with a vision for the future that is rooted in nostalgia,” Edwards said in the prepared remarks. “The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn’t. It’s not just that the answers of the past aren’t up to the job today, it’s that the system that produced them was corrupt _ and still is.”
This vile Naderite actually suggests attacks on Bill Clinton and his wonderful record of accomplishments as a viable political strategy. This vile Naderite wants an attack on Bill Clinton in order to preserve what he mistakenly believes are the Nutroots’ big accomplishment – Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
It will take a lot more than one speech for any candidate to develop a narrative that Democrats should not look to the past for “outdated answers.” I am starting to think that if any Democratic candidate has a chance of defeating Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination, they will have to start making the argument that many of the problems we have faced as a country under the Bush administration were caused, at least in part, by the way our political system operated in the 1990’s and earlier. Unless there is a repudiation of the 1990’s, it is hard for me to see how anyone except Hillary Clinton will end up as the nominee. Even if she has not hit her poll ceiling, Hillary Clinton is still basically the incumbent in this campaign. If Democratic voters are happy with the way the Democratic Party has operated for the last sixteen years, why wouldn’t they just decide to vote for more of it? Right now, Bill Clinton is asking them to do just that and, if the results of recent Iowa polls are any indication, that appears to be a persuasive argument to a significant percentage of Iowa Democrats. Unless other campaigns start arguing in terms that more overtly repudiate the past sixteen years of Democratic Party leadership, I think we should all expect the direction of the leadership of the Democratic Party to remain more or less unchanged in the future. In fact, whatever gains we have made with Howard Dean as DNC chair, and in terms of the increasing progressivism within the Democratic rank and file in Congress, could actually be wiped away.
This is Naderite self interest in its most naked form. This vile Naderite proposes an attack on the past sixteen years of Democratic Party leadership. The only two-term president elected as a Democrat is to be attacked by these vile Naderites. The very thought processes and people who with their own hands bought George Bush into the White House now want Democrats to attack the much loved and hard working two term Democratic president.
Down with the Naderites.
Please note, later today or very early tomorrow, we will post a list of nominees to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame is composed of those of you who venture into the hate swamps of Naderite strongholds to defend Hillary. Defending Hillary in those hate swamps is usually a thankless job. Hillary supporters do thank you – all of you.
Keep up the fight.