As Chris has noted, Hillary Clinton is in a strong position relative to the other candidates. He outlined five factors that could cause Clinton to lose the nomination.
Basically, if another candidate can grow in strength and effectively ally himself with a grassroots/netroots/labor axis, and if a clear anti-Clinton narrative can emerge, Hillary is beatable. Here's Chris on how such a narrative would have to develop:
Since her lead isn't going to just entirely dry up on its own via name recognition from most of her opponents, in order for the current polling situation to substantially change, there needs to be a well developed, anti-Clinton narrative that is convincing to the Democratic rank and file. Note that attacking her personality or character won't work, given the repeated right-wing assaults on this front over the past fifteen years. Also, "electability" probably won't work either, since the Clinton's are largely loved in the rank and file for actually winning. It is going to have to be substantive--ideological, activist, or issue based.
Over the past four days, I have seen a compelling anti-Clinton narrative jump back and forth from the blogs to New Hampshire primary voters to the television circuit of pundits. It centers on Iraq, and has to do with her inability and unwillingness to admit a mistake on the war vote on Iraq.
Despite staking out a position in opposition to the war in Iraq, Hillary Clinton couldn't escape questions over her decision to give the president the power to send in the military."I want to know if right here and right now, once and for all, without nuance, can you say that the war authorization vote was a mistake?" one questioner asked.
That question was how one voter welcomed Clinton to New Hampshire. It was a zinger that put her on the hot seat.
"I've said and I will repeat, that knowing what I know now that I would never have voted for it," Clinton said.
But was that the answer he was looking for?
"Absolutely not. And I love what she's talking about with healthcare. I love what she's talking about with the war now and capping the troops. But until she says it was mistake, she's not gonna get my vote," the questioner replied.
I'm seeing this same theme pop upon Daily Kos quite frequently, and on many of the high traffic community blogs. The clip of that questioner in New Hampshire was on Meet the Press, and commentary on the Sunday shows splashed Clinton aggressively with her waffling on Iraq.
There are several reasons this narrative is dangerous for Clinton.
It brands her badly. This argument pushes her to the right of the entire field, the party, and the country. Every other candidate was either against the war or admitted that their support of the war was a mistake. Since she is the front-runner, this means that there's a clear opportunity to bring her down. Not only can any Democratic rival gain politically by criticizing her unapologetic stance, any Democratic official, any member of the progressive caucus, or any progressive group can gain by doing so. She is hoping that her brand will be strong enough to retain the support of liberals, but this is a very big black mark.
It's a clear and good argument against her. Clinton's inability to admit she was wrong brings up a serious judgment and trust issue. Not only did Hillary Clinton make the wrong choice in 2002, but she hasn't changed her mind. That's either horrible judgment or its a political calculation. Either way, the Democratic party's primary voting universe has lived through the last six years, and many of these voters are not sympathetic to Democrats who cannot be trusted on issues of key importance. Her triangulation and evasion, and her claims that she really didn't vote for the war, are disrespectful to those who did vote against the war, and an insult to those who had the courage to admit they were wrong.
It could dominate the news cycle. Iraq and conflict in the Middle East is going to continue to be in the news cycle and the public debate through 2008. Clinton can talk about how she'd end the war if she were President, but her refusal to admit her own complicity will creep into every news story and override that claim (which we cannot verify and have no reason to trust). It's certainly going to be pushed into every story by opposition researchers, and others who have an interest in seeing the party move to the left.
It brings back memories of John Kerry: Hillary Clinton is making the exact same argument that John Kerry made in 2004. He said that he didn't really vote for the war, only for authorization. Do Democrats really want to be apologists for a mumbler in 2008 during the general election the way we were in 2008? Probably not.
As Peter Daou would say, the triangle is closing, only this time it's primary voters taking the place of Democratic Party officials to push this into the media. She is in a very vulnerable spot right now, and any number of groups could take her on and gain by doing so. Moveon could put up a small ad buy in New Hampshire asking her to come clean on the war. Progressive caucus members could begin to criticize her by name in an attempt to push the Senate to end the war. New anti-Hillary 527s could emerge and begin ad buys. Any number of progressive groups, like the Campaign for America's Future, could work to go after her.
The Iraq-themed anti-Hillary narrative is not character-based or personality-based, it is a substantive disagreement that most Democratic primary voters have with Hillary Clinton. It doesn't reinforce right-wing frames; in fact it reinforces left-wing frames, by suggesting that she isn't doing enough to bring our involvement in Iraq to a close. That's a new attack, and I'm not sure she's ready for it. My guess is that she's going to respond by saying that she's ready for attacks and is will to hit back, or maybe that she's looking forward and not backwards. Neither of these arguments will work, and the standard old DLC triangulation against the left, couched in terms of electability or strength on national security, are weak.
As the primary continues, progressives are going to continue stepping up. Right now, it's only the blogs, the primary voters, and people like Maxine Waters who are expressing frustration. But it's going to become incumbent upon progressive members of Congress to step up, criticize Clinton, and thereby claim credit for their antiwar vote. Hillary Clinton's stance is a basic insult to the courage of those who showed the prudence to vote against the war, or those who changed their minds after being shown as dupes. Her response so far, which is a mix of 'it's not my fault' and 'I didn't vote for the war' weaseling, is insufficient. For instance, Ralph Nader, who is at this point a parasite that feeds off of lost progressive opportunities, is making noises about entering the race in 2008.
The other criteria that Chris suggests above are not yet in place, though there is the possibility that they could snap into place.
UPDATE: Here's her counter-strategy.
At the second house-party gathering of her second day of campaigning in this key primary state, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) insisted that she is the best candidate to win the White House back for her party in 2008. And, what's more, she said Republicans know it."I know what [former House Speaker Newt] Gingrich [R-Ga.] tells people privately, I know what [former House Majority Leader Tom] Delay [R-Texas] tells people privately, I know what Karl Rove tells people privately," she said. "I'm the one person they are most afraid of. Bill and I have beaten them before and we will again."
The remark drew loud cheers from the assembled crowd here at the home of Debora and Mike Pignatelli this afternoon.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 100 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
