Will Clinton’s Unpopularity Among Liberals Hurt or Help Her?

This week at the Take Back America Conference, Hillary Clinton was booed as she talked about the failure of the Iraqi government to capitalize on the opportunity the American military had given them. From the AP article:

On Iraq, Clinton said the military has succeeded by removing Saddam Hussein from power, giving Iraqis the chance for free and fair elections and to govern themselves.

“The American military has succeeded. It is the Iraqi government which has failed to make the tough decisions that are important for their own people,” Clinton said, although a loud chorus of boos cut off the end of her sentence.

“You know, I love coming here every year,” Clinton said with a smile while the crowd continued to boo, with her supporters trying to drown the protesters out in cheers.

Members of the anti-war group Code Pink stood up throughout the audience, raising signs and holding up their fingers in a peace sign.

“I see the signs - ‘Get us out of Iraq now.’ That is what we are trying to do,” she said. She said she is working with Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to sponsor legislation to deauthorize the war.

Perhaps it was slightly ironic that this was the debut of Clinton using her new theme song (which has gotten so much attention because of the introductory Soprano video).

But more important is the notion that there is a level of antipathy towards Clinton on the left among some progressives; the easiest example is her vote for the Iraq war, but it goes deeper than that.

Paul Hogarth writes on the subject:

It’s easy to be nostalgic about the Clinton years, but that’s only because who’s President now. Under Bill Clinton’s watch, the federal government ended its commitment to poor people with Welfare Repeal, betrayed gays and lesbians with the Defense of Marriage Act, devastated family farms with the Freedom to Farm Bill, let media conglomerates take over with the Telecommunications Bill, violated civil liberties with the Anti-Terrorism Bill (which nobody remembers because we now have the Patriot Act), and pandered to anti-Castro extremists with the Helms-Burton Bill. And that was all just in 1996.

Bill and Hillary Clinton came into office with high optimism after twelve years of the Reagan-Bush era, and some good ideas like universal health care. But they quickly buckled under pressure when they couldn’t withstand the right-wing noise machine – a machine that will eagerly rev up its engines once Hillary becomes president. While many excuse their actions as dealing with a Republican Congress, remember that they also caved during the first two years when Democrats were in charge.

And yet despite all that, as he also writes, there’s been almost no impact of that antipathy in the polls: Clinton has remained ahead and if anything has pulled away as the race has gone on in the first few months.

The reason is that the Clintons appeal to moderates in the party, and she has strong appeal to women across the party. Hogarth even adds that he is disappointed gender identity comes before policy.

That said, it’s not nearly as controversial or negative for the Clinton campaign as some would have you believe.

First, many progressives (though perhaps not as many comparatively as Obama and Edwards) are supporting Clinton. This is in part because they see the Clinton Presidency as something for it’s time; think of the response regarding ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ at the Democratic debate; most of the candidates didn’t criticize Clinton for initiating the policy becuase they believed that it was a fair compromise for when it was made, and now is the time to move on further. Additionally, it’s because Hillary Clinton has worked hard to gain support from groups on the left. President Clinton may have signed the Defense of Marriage Act, but Clinton has very strong support in the gay community.

Secondly, Clinton (and many others) realize that the nomination will not simply go to the candidate who is the most popullar on the left; Howard Dean proved that. Moreover, the general election is not going to be won by someone taking a leftist stand on every issue.

And that is why these events from time to time will actually help Clinton. Her reputation on the right is already as a liberal; getting cheered at these events would only make her seem more liberal and enhance the high negative poll numbers that she already has. Getting booed at these types of events (with a strong leftist impeach-type-agenda) now will only establish her as a moderate; it’s one of the few things that can do that. Especially when taken into account the clips that will air on the news: her saying something fairly moderate while getting booed.

The immediate path for Clinton to lose the nomination is if the exact opposite happens; should the moderate majority of the party feel that she if too liberal to win in a general election, they would abandon her for someone else. (The other path is her running a bungling campaign, which seems unlikely at this point.) Eventually Obama’s name recognition will increase, and further test Clinton in the middle. But her tepid reactions from the left will not really effect her popularity in the middle; John Kerry in 2004 was not well liked on the left either and he was still nominated.

There’ll be other instances like this in the future; the test will not be Clinton getting booed, but what she is saying; as long as she abstains from saying things the moderates would be turned off by, she will not be hurt be these types of things.