The Clintons

What in the world are they thinking in their passion to regain the White House? The prelude to the South Carolina primary was ugly. Two analogies come to mind on the part of a Clinton campaign facing a probable defeat in South Carolina: first that it was time to repeat Bill’s Sister Souljah moment when he repudiated an explosive statement by a black activist during the 1992 campaign thereby demonstrating to centrists that he wasn’t tied to special interest groups. The problem of course was that Sister Souljah was suggesting that blacks ought to kill whites to make up for all the black deaths that occur and was an easy target to repudiate. Obviously Obama doesn’t fit this comparison so the only conclusion left is that the Clintons are playing the race card to motivate white’s still harboring racial prejudice. Following the primary, Bill Clinton compared Obama’s overwhelming victory to Jesse Jackson. All of this followed their campaign’s attempts to smear Obama with his admission that he had tried marijuana when young. The approach is to have a surrogate make the statement and then have Hilary supposedly back off it.

Secondly, they continue making negative charges against Obama that have been proven false. The most egregious being their claim that he does not support abortion as evidenced by his “present” vote in the Illinois Legislature rather than a vote in favor of abortion legislation. This charge continued repeatedly even after the pro-abortion organization in Illinois explained it was their strategy to vote that way as the best counter to abortion opponents. This approach is right out of the George Bush playbook. Keep making false statements despite all the evidence to the contrary under the assumption that most people will only hear the claim and not the repudiation.

(A current Bush example: in his State of the Union address this week he again stated that if his tax cuts are not made permanent, the average taxpayer will be subject to an annual $1,800 dollar tax increase. Of course that average of all taxpayers is computed by adding in the no more than $500 that most taxpayers receive along with the $85,000 that taxpayers making over $500,000 get. A study by Citizens for Tax Justice noted that the top 0.6 percent of tax filers, those with more than $500,000 in income, received nearly three-quarters of the benefits of the capital gains and dividend tax cuts in 2005.)

Along with a lot of people, I felt that I would have no problem supporting any of the Democratic candidates in the 2008 election. I would probably vote for Dennis Kucinich because I believe that the Republican performance during the two Bush administrations is so bad that there is no rational argument for returning them to power.

But the Clintons are making it difficult. Right now they have alienated the African-American community (having squandered the previous high regard that they were held in) and given ammunition to all the Clinton haters. She may win the Democratic nomination but if McCain is the Republican nominee, I think she will have a difficult time overcoming Clinton antipathy and will lose the independents and the moderate Republicans who would be attracted to Obama but would prefer McCain to Clinton.

Bill Clinton’s role is disturbing. He appears to be uncontrollable by the Clinton campaign, which raises questions about her leadership abilities. The only chance is that she will galvanize the women’s vote.

New Hampshire

Shock and surprise as the New Hampshire Democratic results arrive counter to all predictions. The wave and the surge have abated and we have a race that will continue for at least a month. It sure looked as if Obama was touching a chord and being propelled by excitement that hasn’t been seen since the Kennedys. Mark Shields on Jim Lehrer’s News Hour, prior to the results being announced, quoted an old adage about primary voting that Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall in love. That seemed to be happening. Obama was offering a story of a new America accepting all kinds of people, a new face that would be seen positively throughout the world, a promise of overcoming the current political divisiveness, and a message instilling hope for the future. At the same time Clinton’s message seemed to shift with the winds. She was experienced and ready to start on day one, but then started to embrace change right after the defeat in Iowa. And then there was Bill, who I still love, but began to wonder just what his role would be in a Hilary administration. So being caught up in the Obama infatuation became easier every day.

Being in love though is probably not a good way to choose a president and there was this gnawing problem I had in trying to visualize what Obama would do after being elected.

I think the experience argument is oversold. Anyone who has not previously been the President of the United States doesn’t have the experience to face the enormous challenges of that office. So I don’t give that much credence to the experience gained in setting up successful consulting firms, being a mayor, governor, or senator. I don’t really care about day one when it is only the first day of what will probably be eight years in the oval office. What matters is how smart you are, what kind of strategic vision you have, whether you can persuade the public (in the US and elsewhere) and Congress to follow your lead, and whether you can surround yourself with able staff and Cabinet members and listen to hard-nosed realistic assessments of our options before making decisions.

I really can’t say that I know how Obama will be able to do this, nor do I know that about Clinton. For the Democratic Party then, the New Hampshire result, coupled with the Iowa outcome, and the need for prolonging the debate between the two, is the best way to reach a conclusion for selecting the best possible candidate to defeat the Republicans in November and that is what really matters.

Clinton has shown that she is capable of change. Her initial statement at the start of her campaign was that she was ‘in it to win it.’ When she found her “voice” a few days ago she said that elections ‘are about the people.’ That is a change worth noting. A year or so ago in a poll taken of members of Congress, Clinton was voted the smartest of the members in both houses. With a little bit of humanity sprinkled in and with a push from women voters this may be a potent combination, especially if Democratic voters continue to be far more excited than Republican voters.

But the Republicans are all set for running against Hilary and the campaign will be vicious. She is tough enough to more than hold her own but I still think Obama is a difficult hurdle for the GOP. Obama also draws better among independents than does Clinton, and I think they are vital in the fall. If McCain were to win the Republican nomination Obama would have a better chance of winning their vote then would Clinton.

Although I don’t love the disproportional impact that Iowa and New Hampshire have in this process, it sure worked out well this year. The result showed a divided electorate and did not decide anything. The smallness of the states also countered the major effect that money has on political campaign. Both states seem to have serious voters who take on the responsibility of judging candidates through face-to-face meetings over a long period of time rather then being completely dependent on TV ads. Maybe this is not the most democratic way to select a president, but it contains some positive aspects nevertheless.