Thursday, December 13, 2007 - Thursday Talk - What can Hillary do?

I haven't had much talk about politics on here lately, and since I really do not have much to talk about from Wednesday, I decided I should bring back my intermittent discussion series "Tuesday Talk" on Thursday.

Topic: Can Hillary beat Barack? Is the Iowa Caucus even important?

**First of all, I want to say most of what I am about to write is free form. I have not sat down and decided where I want to go with this, so if I ramble, please bear with me.**

I've wrote on a number of occasions how I support Hillary Clinton for President, and before you dismiss me as a Democratic sheep, I recommend you go back and read some of these posts, especially the first one written so long ago which goes into great detail as to why I am a Clinton supporter. I also wrote another one called "How to Solve a Problem Like Barack?"

Ever since a disastrous misstep on the question of immigration at a debate, Hillary has been portrayed in the media as being in free fall. Granted, I think her campaign has had a lot of trouble dealing with a drastic change in the atmosphere from the summer that had basically elevated her chances at the nomination to an inevitably, but I hardly think she is in free fall. Actually, as per an ABC Poll out yesterday, she is still ahead of Obama by 30 points (53-23) amongst likely voters nationally. And yes, this was after the Oprah-thon. The troublesome polls have been in Iowa and New Hampshire, where she is neck and neck (and neck with Edwards, too), and with how insanely front loaded the primaries are this year, she could still lose one or both of those and still cruise into the nomination.

Outside of the hit in public relations a loss in Iowa would create, a larger question is why is Iowa so important? The history of their prognostication in the actual outcomes of elections have been spotty at best. They tend to go for candidates from neighboring states instead of their ability to be elected. Indeed, the history of Iowa is littered with people who won but did not eventually receive their party nomination.

• 1976 - Uncommitted beat Jimmy Carter
  
• 1980 - George H.W. Bush beat Ronald Reagan
  
• 1988 - Bob Dole and Pat Robertson beat George H.W. Bush
• 1988 - Richard Gephardt and Paul Simon beat Michael Dukakis
• 1992 - Tom Harkin, Uncommitted, and Paul Tsongis beat Bill Clinton
  

This just begs the question, why are we wasting so much time on this state? While the caucus process may actually be more purely democratic than a primary, because citizens debate the merits of the candidates in an open forum, the Iowa Caucuses actually do not produce actual delegates to the convention like primaries in other States. So, you have presidential candidates falling all over themselves to serve hot dogs at the Iowa State Fair, when winning the Caucus has as much political clout as an Academy Award.

Of course, it all comes down to media coverage, and if you look like a winner, then they are going to portray you as one. Since Hillary had one bad debate which was the result of a media created frenzy on Obama finally getting "tough," they have been hammering her hard as the standard bearer for triangulation, which is just a fancy way of saying that she stakes out a place in the mushy middle by never really saying she is for or against something. This is a great Clintonian tactic, and it became the chum for the sharks looking for vulnerability. I'll be the first one to admit that she has done this on a few occasions, but by backing her into this corner, it does a disservice to the fact that she has clearly stated her ideas and plans on a myriad of things. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Obama.

The thing that Hillary should take away from all this is that people need something to latch onto, and this is what Bill Clinton did so well and Obama is doing now. Bill had the ability to connect to people in a way that Hillary simply cannot. I do not think anyone would debate that she is brilliant. However, the cold and calculating part of her nature is the one people are most likely to point out as a reason to mistrust her. Granted, she has a very fine path to tread. She is the first major female candidate for the presidency in a world that is still pretty misogynist. She has been magnificent in proving that she is capable of being president. What she has not proven to the public yet is why she wants it. Why does she want to return to a level of power that frankly must have produced some of the darkest hours of her life? Is it some sort of revenge to the "vast rightwing conspiracy?" What she needs to do is sit down with the American public and clearly enunciate her aspirations. She needs to buy into some of the idealism that Obama has, and give the American people a window into her soul as a person. What are her dreams for America in the next four years? Once she shows that she is not a strident figure all the time, then she will show us why she deserves to be President of the United States.