There’s always been at least some tension between Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party’s activist base. Clinton is perceived as something of a moderate, reluctant to fight aggressively for progressive causes, and who backed the war in Iraq, without conceding the mistake.<\/p>\n
But if the hostility was awkward before, it’s about to get considerably worse. The Huffington Post reported<\/a> last night on remarks Clinton delivered at a closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday. An obtained audio recording — it’s unclear precisely where or when the fundraiser was held — highlighted Clinton blaming Democratic Party activists for her electoral difficulties.<\/p>\n “Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down,” Clinton said to a meeting of donors. “We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Last week, the HuffPost reported on Clinton saying “screw ’em<\/a>,” in reference to working-class whites in the South. The story was largely dismissed, and as I argued<\/a>, it probably wasn’t too big a deal anyway.<\/p>\n But getting caught trashing the “activist base of the Democratic Party” is far more problematic, especially while running for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Indeed, Clinton’s comments at the fundraiser reflect a certain disdain for liberal activists, and hints at a rift between the base and the Clinton campaign that will be difficult to repair. But Clinton’s comments went considerably further, dismissing the “activist base” of the party, rejecting their positions on foreign policy, and accusing them of intimidation tactics. What’s more, she adopted a rather elitist attitude: “[T]hat’s what we’re dealing with.” Who is “we”? The party elites who find the “activist base” an annoyance? And why, exactly, is high turnout among Democratic activists in primaries and caucuses a bad thing?<\/p>\n And when Clinton said, “I don’t agree with them” in relation to the foreign policy and national security positions embraced by the party’s base, what was she referring to? Presumably, this has to go well beyond Afghanistan, since most Dems supported the launch of the war in 2001.<\/p>\n Worse, Clinton, at least publicly, has had very complimentary things to say about MoveOn.org, which her comments at the fundraiser contradict. In April, at a MoveOn-sponsored town hall event, Clinton praised party activists who refuse to back down: “I think you have helped to change the face of American politics for the better, both online, and in the corridors of power. So although some of your members may be a little surprised to hear me say this, I am grateful for your work.”<\/p>\n
\n
\nIf Clinton were simply annoyed with MoveOn.org, it might be easier to understand. After all, when a major group endorses a candidate’s rival, it’s not surprising that the candidate would harbor some hard feelings towards the group. (That is not, however, an excuse for mischaracterizing MoveOn’s positions — the group did not oppose the war in Afghanistan — and repeating a bogus attack levied by Karl Rove a year prior.)<\/p>\n