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.
Leaving aside the fact that Clinton lied about MoveOn's position on Afghanistan, and that she disagrees with them (she praised them just a few months prior to this statement), Clinton's attempt to denigrate MoveOn only hurts her case.
She has been saying for quite some time now that caucuses, which she generally loses, are less important than primaries, which she sometimes wins. She says primaries include more voters and that makes them more representative.
But there is another way to look at this. It does take more effort to vote in caucuses than primaries as you have to get together with a bunch of other voters and spend more than five minutes in a voting booth. In other words, you are more likely to go if you are energized for your candidate, and less likely to go if you are not.
Obama wins caucuses because his voters are more energized and his campaign more organized to get out the caucus vote. One would think that is a good thing.
Hillary claims it is MoveOn that is making the difference in caucuses, which may or may not be true, but she has absolutely no evidence to prove that other than the fact that MoveOn has endorsed Obama. On the other hand, plenty of groups have endorsed Clinton. She has money, and supposedly a good campaign organization. So why didn't her voters turn out too? Could it be that they are less energized and less enthusiastic about her candidacy? She did refer to "voters who ACTUALLY show up to support me," which is an odd way to talk about your supporters.
In this statement Clinton is criticizing the "activist base" of the Demcratic Party. Does she realize what she is doing here? Does she realize that turning against the party's activist base will only hurt her? Is this evidence of good judgment?
Furthermore, Clinton claims that MoveOn activists intimidate her voters at caucuses, but I have heard no independent evidence to support that incendiary claim. Bill Clinton made some big fuss about it in Nevada, speaking loudly and obnoxiously as he walked through a casino, but he is a tad biased, and has been known to tell a lie or two.
Besides, Hillary keeps claiming she is tougher than Obama, that he is a whiner, and that if he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen.
As long as we're using kitchen metaphors, it seems Hillary is the proverbial pot calling the kettle...well you know the rest.
