MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

Countdown to the Caucus

Washington Dispatch: In the Iowa home stretch, Obama stays the course while Clinton scrambles to distinguish herself from her two competitors.

December 17, 2007


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


RELATED ARTICLES

RE:ACTION

AVOCA, IOWA — The last debate is over. The Des Moines Register's coveted endorsement has gone to Hillary Clinton. There are a mere 17 days left before the Iowa caucuses.

The candidates are officially in the home stretch, and the two leading Democrats, senators Barack Obama and Clinton, have honed their messages. Having risen 10 points in about two months, Obama has the luxury of merely fine-tuning a stump speech that has remained largely constant for more than a month. Clinton, though, has abandoned her ill-fated attempt to go negative against Obama and is instead promoting her long track record of working hard for people in need.

Obama has changed little about his campaign since November. He insists now, as he has for months, that ending the influence of lobbyists, reducing the power of special interests, and dissolving the legislative gridlock in Washington are the keys to making the government address the concerns of everyday people. "If we want to change outcomes," he says, "we've got to change our politics." He reiterates the idea that his election would be a break from the past and from the politics as usual that have disgusted Americans who "have lost trust in their government but want to believe again." And the consistent messaging has worked. The attendees at Obama's campaign events parrot his talking points so perfectly that they could double as campaign staffers. "He's got a fresh perspective, different from the old Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing," said one Obama supporter at a campaign stop in New Hampton, Iowa, on Saturday. Bob Friedman, who attended an Obama event in Waterloo, said Hillary Clinton is "just politics as usual."

Clinton has reacted to her falling poll numbers by altering her speeches repeatedly. She went on the attack two weeks ago, saying, perhaps tongue in cheek, "Now the fun part starts." High-minded contrasts on the candidates' health care plans quickly devolved into opposition research papers on Obama's kindergarten essays and questions about whether his overseas experience as a child is relevant to his foreign-policy experience. But the more Clinton attacked, the higher Obama went in the polls. As the candidate who supposedly is the best at rough-and-tumble politics—she brags on the stump that she went head-to-head with the Republican smear machine in the '90s and came out on top—Clinton either misread the temperament of the Iowa electorate or executed her attacks so artlessly that they ended up working against her.

So now, Clinton, following the standard playbook, is leaving the attacks to her surrogates, including Bill Clinton, who called electing Obama "a roll of the dice," and Billy Shaheen, her campaign's New Hampshire cochair, who speculated that Obama may have sold drugs as a teenager. (Shaheen subsequently resigned from Clinton's campaign.)

As Clinton began a final swing through Iowa on Sunday, she made no mention of her competitors in three stops near the Nebraska border. (Clinton was ferried to the events in a newly unveiled "Hill-a-copter.") With the inevitability argument no longer operative—eviscerated by her dropping poll numbers—Clinton relied on her biography. "I am asking for your support based on my 35 years of work," she told voters in Council Bluffs. In a sense, she got back to basics, once again reintroducing herself to the Iowans in attendance. With a measured pace and in a grave voice, she talked about working on behalf of children after leaving law school, reforming education as first lady of Arkansas, fighting for women's rights across the globe as first lady of the nation, and about writing her book It Takes a Village. All of these things, she implied, required a strong work ethic and a willingness to sweat for everyday folks who need help.

And the emphasis on her good works ties into her only remaining attack on Obama and John Edwards. All of the Democrats in this race want change, she said repeatedly on Sunday. "Some people believe you make change by demanding it. Some people believe you make change by hoping for it. I believe you get [change] by working hard."

"That work means knowing when to find common ground and when to stand your ground," Clinton said. "If you are too unyielding," she said, evoking Edwards and his hard-edged anti-corporate message, "you won't get anything done. Not in America. We're not a dictatorship." But "if you don't stand up and refuse to compromise on what's important," she added, referring to Obama and his conciliatory nature, "you could lose out the opportunity to make change. So you have to know how to balance it. How to stand your ground and how to find common ground. For thirty-five years I've been a change-maker."

She was threading the needle, positioning herself between the candidate of confrontation (Edwards) and the candidate of hope (Obama). Forced onto the defensive, Clinton is now distinguishing herself as the porridge that is neither too hot nor too cold.

Jonathan Stein is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington, D.C., bureau.



 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

In regards to the debate as to whom of the democratic candidates has the most experience, the question or argument should be -- to whom of the Democrats or Republicans has the RIGHT KIND OF EXPERIENCE. As we all know, there is a right kind of experience and a wrong kind of experiene. Do we really want to elect some one with Geroge Bush's or Hillary Clinton's wrong kind Experience that so ineptley got us into the Iraq War.... -- Or, do we want to elect some one like Barack Obama to lead us the next four years, who has wisely and judiciously shown by rejecting the Iraq war from the beginning, that he does have the Right kind of Experience -- the Right Stuff to lead us forward the next four years. And it is only someone who has shown from the beginning, this Right kind of Experience & Wisdom, that can lead us with forethought and foresight, out of this mess, which we call the Iraq War.
Posted by:Julie MackDecember 18, 2007 10:35:15 AMRespond ^
Julie, First of all, Hillary Clinton did not lead us into the Iraq War. She did vote for the authorization as did many other Democrats. And yes, it's true Obama has always been against that vote, yet he didn't vote on the resolution since he wasn't in the Senate yet. It's easy to be an armchair quarterback and say you wouldn't have voted yes, but let's face it, neither you, I or Obama were there for the Iraq War Resolution vote. Obama is a first-term Senator, Clinton is in her second, but also has 8 years as First Lady. During the Clinton Presidencies, we had a budget surplus, low unemployment and a higher standard of living. Advances in civil rights, medicine and technology were on an upward trajectory. Inroads were made in the Middle East peace process, and overall things were HOPEFUL. Hillary Clinton was a part of that. Sounds like the right kind of experience to me.
Posted by:John WolforthDecember 18, 2007 12:30:02 PMRespond ^
It really would be refreshing if Hillary made full disclosure that she is going to be under oath before the election in the Los Angeles civil case, Paul v Clinton. The FEC ruled in Dec 2005 that the campaign filed three false reports and hid over $720,000. No, I didn't make it up. It's on the FEC website. When ordered to do a fourth report, her treasurer submitted for her the fourth fraud in Jan. 2006. Among the frauds is that Stan Lee personally gave $250,000. She knows that is not true. We have the video deposition of Lee swearing under oath that he gave no money. All of the documents are at hillcap.org We believe that discovery in the civil case is going to reveal the largest campaign finance fraud ever. Okay, let's see how long it takes for exposing the public record to be called Hillary bashing.
Posted by:Douglas CoganDecember 18, 2007 3:20:50 PMRespond ^
If 8 years as First Lady qualifies you for President, let's bring back Barbara Bush! Give me a break! Hillary voted for the war. You can spin it all you want, but when she had a chance to lead, she chose what was best for her career. Now over 300 soldiers are dead, tens of thousands maimed, not to mention the carnage to Iraqi's and the huge debt. Experience is only valid if it brings wisdom. If experience led Hillary to vote for the war, I will take inexperience any day. The Congress is supposed to protect us from being dragged by the Executive into war. Morality aside, she completely abdicated her Constitutional duty. Her actions were contemptible. Her vote for the war should disqualify her from running for PTA let alone President. Sorry, you can not change the fact of the vote or its consequences and spinning it otherwise is similarly immoral.
Posted by:PeteGioDecember 18, 2007 3:53:08 PMRespond ^
The accuracy of Mr. Stein's closing sentence literally knocked me out. I never really cared for Margaret Thatcher, but she was certainly a quite a strong woman with a very dominant, compelling personality. The way I see it, Hillary will never come close to being an American equivalent to Margaret. The abundant experience that Hillary claims to have is highly inflated and exagerated. If she is really that great in foreign affairs, where is her second language proficiency? Why doesn't she speak fluente Spanish or French or German or Italian, etc.? Her experience in foreign affairs is as a mono-lingual observer. Living part of one's childhood abroad immersed in a foreign language and culture 24/7 is a distinct advantage that definitely carries over into adulthood. Obama's 4 years in Indonesia are a fundamental part of who he is. And then take a look at Bill Richardson who spent all of his childhood in Mexico City in an all Spanish-speaking environment except for his relationship with his American dad. Everything he did from studying in class, doing homework, and taking exams to playing soccer during recess with his childhood friends and classmates was all in Spanish in Mexico City during his first 13 years of life. What he absorbed in Mexico as a youngster has definitely enabled him to play a key role in tough negotiations with North Korea, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Fidel Castro in Cuba. Imagine Richardson negotiating with Castro all in Spanish, without requiring an interpreter. Sorry, but the fact that Hillary has hung onto her husband's political/presidential coattails is not, IMHO, the broad, deep experience that the American people need to heal our deeply wounded nation. I would love to see an Obama-Richardson ticket for the democrats. Richard Cadena Expatriate American Mexico City
Posted by:Richard CadenaDecember 18, 2007 9:45:02 PMRespond ^
I give claps to you Richard. My thoughts exactly
Posted by:VinceDecember 19, 2007 12:07:18 AMRespond ^
You guys know if Hillary was a man you would be supporting her, period. You attack her on the vote on the war when almost every democrat voted the same way and her and Obama are not very different on any of the issues. Obama or Hillary are both good candidates but Obama's time is not now. Do you have any idea what the Republicans are going to do to him if he becomes the candidate? They don't play by the rule book and they will destroy him, fortantely for Hillary they can only attack her on what they always attack her on and the public is over this. Regardless of who gets the nomination I will be supporting them but I think Hillary is the better choice among the two of them at this time. One thing you can always count on is the rampant sexism on either political isle. It's not hidden, it's right in your face. End global sexism and we all will live in a better world, simple fact regardless of what you think of Hillary.
Posted by:Your motherDecember 19, 2007 10:21:08 AMRespond ^
I believe Hillary will say and do anything to get a vote. Just because most of her fellow Dem's voted for the war and were wrong to do so, doesn't make her right for also going along with them. What this Country needs is someone to do what is right for the Country and it's people, not what is right for the Political Party and themselves. I just don't think she fits the bill.
Posted by:NebraskanDecember 23, 2007 10:16:56 AMRespond ^
Please god forbid no more bushies or that couple from ARK....KANN...SAW
Posted by:mr.masteriosoDecember 23, 2007 8:50:26 PMRespond ^
Clinton has no experience- she has led nothing including senate committees except the bimbo eruption gang. She was a passenger on the plane to foreign countries and never had security clearnace, never chaired let alone was part of National security Council. She has Great experience in lying, deceit, slander, defamation , changing positions to suit the changing wind direction,taking credit for things that have no basis in proof. Obama at least seems to listen and give considered answers to real concerns, he is charimatic, wise, a uniter, and does not have half his party saying they will vote for anyone but him. Mrs.c has half Dem's, all of the repub's, and 60% of independents who will not vote for her under any circumstance. If she bully's/blackmails her way to the candidate we Dem's will LOSE BIG TIME.
Posted by:bink1December 26, 2007 4:12:07 PMRespond ^
I'm not voting for Hillary and I don't care how you package her.
Posted by:DoreyDecember 28, 2007 6:55:29 AMRespond ^
First of all, Hillary has more than two competitors for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, all of whom are equally if not more qualified and experienced as she is. Next, she needs to resist the urge to hinge herself to Bill's Presidency. Hillary was not elected nor has she served the voters in the Office of President or Governor. She snaked her way into the Senate through the State with the weakest residency requirements, only to serve as a 7-year long placeholder, all the time eying the Oval Office. Having been first lady during Bill's elected service does not count as Presidential experience. I'd be impressed if she can check off ten things she's done in the Senate for the Empire State who did elect her that has made New York better for knowing her, without parroting 9/11 in the manner Rotten Rudy has come to make us loathe. The truth is that beyond getting elected and covetously funded by the corporations that now claim ownership of her soul, Hillary is really a failure as a politician.
Posted by:rageDecember 31, 2007 9:49:42 AMRespond ^
I now have Hillary upsetting both Edwards and Obama in Iowa. We shall see. It will be interesting to watch what happens. I do not want to see her win the Presidency, but I am not satisfied with the Rpublican field either. Ron Paul makes some sense, but is foreign policy would only work if it were the year 1850.
Posted by:Ames TiedemanJanuary 1, 2008 8:23:32 AMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com
















bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2007 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS