Sistah Souljah who?
by digby
I honestly don't know if I can take it. Charlie Pierce leads me to this little bit of Village wisdom by Matt Bai --- and it makes me want to start drinking way too early:
Should she ultimately run again, Clinton might actually do herself a greater service by holding her ground. When we talked about Clinton, David Axelrod, the strategist who spent a career running campaigns against the establishment before guiding Obama to the White House, told me: "The quickest way to authenticate yourself, and the hardest thing to do, is to be willing to put yourself at risk by standing up for things you believe, even if it means taking positions every once in a while that people don't see as the smart political move." Which could mean that the real way to prove you're not just a projection of the status quo isn't necessarily to mouth tired condemnations of the establishment, but rather to speak hard truth to the partisans who indict it.
This is actually presented as a creative and unique approach for a Democrat to take. Evidently Bai was still sucking on his juice box when this little phrase was coined. (Axelrod certainly wasn't):
Sister Souljah (born Lisa Williamson, 1964) is an American hip hop-generation author, activist, recording artist, and film producer. She gained prominence for Bill Clinton's criticism of her remarks about race in the United States during the 1992 presidential campaign. Clinton's well-known repudiation of her comments led to what is now known in politics as a Sister Souljah moment.
Bill Clinton invented the process, although I have to give President Obama a lot of credit for polishing it into something much more subtle. (Here's Ta-Nehisi Coates on that subject.) I'm fairly sure that Hillary Clinton is aware of such stale tropes even if Matt Bai and David Axelrod are still laboring under the delusion that an Democratic candidate can win the vote of someone who's primary concern is that the hippies are taking over the country. Sheesh.
Pierce points out what should be obvious to anyone but which the cognoscenti seem congenitally unable (more likely unwilling) to understand:
The Democratic "populism" people so seem to fear is about two years old -- a but longer, if you date it from the rise of the Occupy movement -- and it hasn't shown yet that it is generally ready to exert power within Democratic politics. But its power is building, and its popularity is increasing, and if Clinton gets convinced that the way to go is to "stand firm" against it, proving to God alone knows who that she is a serious Leader with Leadership, a genuine political reaction to the depredations of the private banking sector will pass a'glimmering. That not only will be bad for Democrats, it will be extremely bad for the country. It will pitch the Democrats back into the position whereby the really smart people congratulate the Democrats for standing firm against anything that might result in a political advantage.
They are astonishingly comfortable in that position. It is, after all, where the money is.
.