While in the midst of another John Edwards 36-hour marathon, the Edwards brain trust laid out its plans in a conference call to reporters this afternoon and their message was simple -- Hey Hillary, don't let the (campaign) door hit you on the way out. As if Clinton needs more trouble (almost all poll trends are looking, well, not helpful), the Edwards campaign is spreading the word that a defeat here could seal her doom (funny, the Drudge report also had a similar non-attributed report about 'turmoil' in the Clinton campaign and the sharpening of the knives by the Edwards folks) and render her irrelevant. It was a good example of pre-pre-spin. The Edwards folks are trumpeting the amount of folks supporting him in Iowa that they didn't even know about (as many as 40,000 they claim) -- and are banking on a repeat of that here in first-in-the-galaxy primary land tomorrow while celebrating rising poll numbers nationally. They believe that "change" will rule the land again and they hammered her for being essentially a paid subsidiary of the oil/defense/pharmaceutical and goodness knows how many other industries (funny, they had barely a thing to say about Barack Obama -- but then their goal is to get into a change showdown with Obama.)
On the Democratic side, few can escape the Clinton orbit. Edwards is expected to end his latest statewide sprint tonight in Dover -- at the same Elks Lodge that Bill Clinton made his famous 'till the last dog" speech in 1992. When I asked if there was a coincidence, I was advised not to read too much into it. O.K. I won't but I still find it interesting.
I'm traveling north to Rochester to see the Iowa victors Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama in the same town around the same time.
(earlier with P.S.)
At the risk of piling on but here goes anyway -- It's rare to see a seasoned politician and campaigner dance mostly to the tune of another one but watching Hillary Clinton take up the banner of change -- as a reflexive gesture, like the sign of the cross against a vampire, against her rival Democratic rival Barack Obama -- can be instructive. When the Clinton campaign shifts into theme mode it is a sight to behold -- surrogates, staffers and the candidate begin speaking in a numbing unison to fight back perceived or real threats against her candidacy -- as I witnessed last night in Hampton at a campaign rally in which she pulled out all the stops. I've said for months the Clintonites had misinterpreted and underestimated Obama's rhetorical gifts of persuation and visionary narrative -- and in doing so they misread the mood of the voters. They are rightly outraged that Obama gets away with being vague of about policy details -- but that's her strength not his. Perhaps given the unprecendented mess the next president faces, he doesn't want to get bogged in policy specifics. Perhaps there's less than than meets the eye. They and perhaps many voters find his sermons on hope and change too much to stomach. But I've seen during this crazy primary season that voters are responding to the "we" far more than candidates speaking "I, I, I."
Watching her drink the change kool aid and spit it back out looks forced and anemic, another example of poll-driven insertions that dull an otherwise lively mind and unparallelled gift to dechipher what's wrong and offer solutions. She can wear an audience down with her detailed answers. When she says "I'm a doer and not a talker" she can make a good case of accomplishment. But she has slipped on so many suits in the campaign (experience, leadership, accomplishment, change) that you never know what's going to come up. In comparison, Obama has had the advantage of being annoyingly consistent with his few themes.
Going after Obama for his legislative votes is fair game but the hypocrisy is almost comical given the depth of lobbyist money and influence in her campaign -- and as I learned in Iowa, talk about Iraq war can be toxic because voters there told me they haven't fogotten the war or her war authorization vote in 2002. To accuse Obama of voting to fund the troops already in a war she supported at the beginning was rich enough to give me intellectual heartburn. Their latest dagger is a 'Obama as a potential George W. Bush in the making' (you know, no experience and without experience you can't have change is the latest formula) and it's an embarrassing howler. It's also a sign of desperation -- Bush was the most ill-experienced, least traveled, most coddled and uncurious president possibly ever. If Clinton can't tell the difference, what does that say about her judgment?
P.S. -- Perhaps it's a slight case of paranoia on my part but last night at the Clinton event in Hampton, a very tall man carrying a Clinton sign kept walking along the ropes of the media area, staring at reporters and then walking away before returning a short time later. When I made eye contact with him he smiled a not-reassuring smile and turned around. I know the popular wisdom among the Clinton supporters is that we are all secret Hillary bashers -- perhaps this guy was carrying a media voodoo doll?
ADVERTISEMENTS 
Comments
As a lifelong democrat, I am incensed about the phony Obama who puts on a show for everyone and doesn’t say much of substance. He tells empty headed new voters a plethora of clichés' so they can feel part of the process that they have been too lazy to otherwise understand what’s really at stake. The real truth is that if you are deciding the night before the primary who you are going to vote for then you probably shouldn't be voting because you haven't been paying attention. These elections have become more about presenting a candidate for entertainment value (since the Reagan era) and so Obama can be absent of substance and of any real knowledge and he just needs to look and act the part. Obama goes around evoking JFK and Martin Luther Kings name when in fact he has nothing remote to their achievements. As a matter of fact he is a rank amateur compared to Hillary Clinton who is so much more in her knowledge of issues and in the accomplishments she has achieved which is why you don't hear her speaking in prose of worthless and empty ideals aimed at the dumbed down YouTube-MySpace generation. If you noticed in the debate how many times he resorted back to the cute little sayings he has been uttering instead of delving further into his intent in handling the dilemmas we face in this countries future. Again just to try to allure ignorant fence sitters who call themselves independent voters, when in fact these voters are just absent of conviction and pursue the flavor of the month mentality! They play this like rooting for their favorite sports team. Iowa and New Hampshire are worthless in the direction that this nation moves otherwise and so they play this moronic game every presidential election because it's the only notoriety they can muster. How can so many people come into this as undecided? Maybe they should watch more C-span and less Oprah! I just am not sure why the unaware “independent” voters get to participate in the primaries for the Democratic Party. They turn the process into an embarrassment.
Posted by: ben10980![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.blogthecoast.com/primary/pundit/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 8, 2008 01:52 AM