| December
6, 2007
From
War Room to Panic Room
Hillary
Clinton and the Politics of Character Assassination
By AL
GIORDANO
Events
have conspired to deepen my November 14 argument that a generational
fault line is reshaping the Democratic presidential nomination contest
(“Don’t Trust Anyone
Over 50,” CounterPunch, November 14). To wit:
On
November 20, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, the Democratic
frontrunner, issued an awkward attack on presidential rival Senator
Barack Obama of Illinois, based on his four childhood years as an
American abroad in Indonesia. To an audience in Shenandoah, Iowa,
via a telephone speaker call, Clinton spoke these words: "Now
voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age
of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges
the next president will face.”
The
whack wasn’t merely against a ten-year-old boy but also versus
any other American citizen or immigrant that once lived elsewhere.
It also played into the nasty whisper campaign on the right that
attempts to paint Obama as the Manchurian Muslim that Fox News has
falsely implied was trained since childhood to infiltrate and destroy
Western Civilization. But in the context of other recent events,
it was part and parcel of the pattern of hostility by Clinton and
her lackeys toward youth, in general, and young voters in specific.
On
December I, the Clinton campaign read a script to various political
reporters about the Obama campaign’s efforts to raise voter
turnout among university students in Iowa, making the (legally errant)
claim that Hawkeye state students that live and study in Iowa but
are from other states should not be able to vote in the January
3 caucuses: “We are not courting out-of-staters. The Iowa
caucus ought to be for Iowans,” said a Clinton spokeswoman,
adding, “We are not systematically trying to manipulate the
Iowa caucuses with out of state people. We don’t have literature
recruiting out of state college students.”
On
December 2, Clinton gave an audience in Clear Lake Iowa, according
to the Des Moines Register, an argument reminiscent of those for
a poll-tax as a requirement to vote: “This is a process for
Iowans. This needs to be all about Iowa, and people who live here,
people who pay taxes here.”
The
Clinton camp has reason to be worried about the youth vote. The
November 25-28 Des Moines Register poll that showed Obama ahead
in Iowa with 28 percent, to 25 percent for Clinton and 23 percent
for John Edwards – within the margin of error, but with Obama
as the only candidate trending upward – noted Obama’s
towering lead among younger voters: “Obama also dominates
among younger caucusgoers, with support from 48 percent from those
younger than 35. Clinton was the choice of 19 percent in that group
and Edwards of 17 percent.”
That
this year’s Iowa caucuses will be held during winter break,
contrary to conventional wisdom, in fact makes the college student
vote more potent on a statewide level by spreading it to all corners.
Instead of, as in previous years, those votes being concentrated
in Ames and other college towns, the students will be participating
in their hometown caucuses throughout the state. In Iowa, the sum
total of votes does not determine the statewide result. It is rather
the sum of 1,700-plus local caucus results that will be added up
to determine the winner. In rural Iowa, where three or four extra
votes can dramatically change caucus results where, say, only 15
voters turn out to caucus, the decentralization of the university
vote will likely have a greater impact on the statewide results
than if it had been ghettoized only in college towns. In the academic
centers, where, because of high caucus turnout in 2004 there will
be a heavy concentration of delegates to be selected, university
professors and staff will likely have a comparitavely greater influence
than in other years: those are also very strong demographic groups
for Obama (who, for example, widely leads among campaign contributions
from employees of academic institutions, and in polls among the
college educated). At issue in this dust-up is whether students
who originate from Illinois and other states will come back to participate
as well.
Efforts
to disenfranchise student voters are more commonly the signature
tactics of Republicans. Prior to the November 2004 elections, the
executive director of the Iowa Republican party send a mailer out
to voters, with the images of Senators Clinton and Ted Kennedy of
Massachusetts, proclaiming, “Would you let these two tell
you how to vote?” The flyer added: “They’re not
from here. They won’t stay here. But they’re voting
here. As part of the Democrats plan, they have registered a large
number of Grinnell College students from places like New York and
Massachusetts to vote in Iowa… Then why would you let 1,000
east-coast college kids elect your State Representative?”
The
ACLU, the Democratic Party, MTV’s Rock the Vote and other
organizations that encourage young voter participation have historically
challenged such voter repression stunts. The sudden adoption of
the same anti-democratic tactics speaks volumes about the overriding
character of Senator Clinton and her campaign in the home stretch:
a paranoid obsession with, and resentment toward, the relative youth
of Obama (who is 46 to Clinton’s 60) and his battalions of
young supporters.
The Clinton campaign’s generational meltdown became visible
to all on December 3, when in a press release that sought to paint
Obama as an ambitious pol that had charted his rise to the presidency
from the sandbox of his childhood, it wrote:
In
kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become
President.’ "Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten
teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired
child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math
skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,'
the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07 ]
The
press release included a similar paragraph about such an essay Obama
reportedly penned in third grade, too.
Rival candidate John Edwards, when asked about Clinton’s kindergarten
attack, told reporters in Clear Lake, Iowa, ''It's fine to talk
about our records and about issues. But we probably ought to stop
at age 14.'' Later, in Waterloo, he told voters, "I want to
confess to all of you right now. In third grade I wanted to be two
things: I wanted to be a cowboy and I wanted to be Superman."
What
some pundits called “Kinder-Gate” came on the heels
of a buckshot-load of Clinton attacks on Obama’s “courage,”
his “character,” and the policy differences between
the two on health care and social security. “Now the fun part
starts,” crowed Clinton on December 3, defending her escalation
of attacks on Obama. But the resulting week has been anything but
fun for Clinton and her campaign.
On
the heels of her vanishing lead in Iowa and shrinking lead in first-in-the-nation
primary state New Hampshire and nationwide, Clinton’s artless
attacks generated a near consensus throughout the ideological spectrum
that the frontrunner is blowing it. Former Clinton cabinet member
Robert Reich sharply rebutted what he called the “series of
slurs” by his “old friend” Clinton against Obama.
The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto wrote that, “a
desperate Mrs. Clinton stands on the brink of losing all dignity.”
Time’s
Joe Klein called Clinton’s statements “sweaty and desperate.”
Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic noted, "Some of her top advisers
exuded a sense of entitlement: Clinton deserved to be president;
it was her turn. They did not perceive any threat until it was almost
too late."
In
full damage-control mode by December 4, Clinton strategist Mark
Penn went on MSNBC to claim that the attack on Obama’s kindergarten
essay was “a joke.” But Boston Globe political reporter
Scott Lehigh wrote that he had, on the day of the press release,
asked the Clinton campaign whether the kindergarten attack was tongue-in-cheek,
and did not get a response: “Asked for some indication that
the reference to elementary-school essays was meant humorously,
a Clinton press aide said he'd have to check and get back to me.”
Meanwhile,
as Iowa polls generally show an Obama rise, a Clinton slide, and
an Edwards hover close behind in third, Clinton campaign internet
director Peter Daou circulated two Iowa polls that showed Clinton
out front, sighing, “We'll see how much attention these polls
get.” But it turned out that those polls were taken prior
to the newer wave of surveys, one from November 7 to 25, the other
from November 6 to 18. The bulk of the interviews on each were conducted
before the meltdown began. Clinton aide Daou got caught trying to
peddle older polls as new ones (an indication of just how important
perceptions of inevitability are to the Clinton campaign not only
on a propaganda level, but also for its self-image: after months
of using Clinton’s lead in the polls to smack all criticism
by rivals, the campaign is losing its number-one rationale for existing:
it’s much-heralded lead in the polls.)
Clinton’s
national lead has also begun to tank. As of December 5, the Rasmussen
daily tracking poll had Clinton with 34 percent – her lowest
support in the history of the tracking poll that began last July
– with Obama at 24 and Edwards at 16 (prior to Thanksgiving,
she enjoyed a 24-point lead over Obama; that’s been more than
halved in less than two weeks). Typically, the “Iowa bounce”
gives the caucus winner a 12 to 20 point surge in New Hampshire,
which next year votes on January 8.
It
may be that Clinton and her strategists have already written off
Iowa and seek to diminish its importance so as to later be able
to bounce back from a defeat there while attempting to influence
which of her rivals emerges stronger on January 3. Her attacks on
Obama are reminiscent of the famous “murder-suicide”
crossfire, four years ago, between Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt,
who had been first and second in the polls until the week before
the caucuses. Both went negative on the other and Iowa voters chose
the more positive candidacies of John Kerry and Edwards over the
frontrunners on caucus night. National Review’s Rick Lowry
paraphrases Major Garrett on Fox News’ take on the Democratic
contest: “Hillary is probably going after Obama so hard in
Iowa because she can afford to have Edwards win there in a way she
can't with Obama.”
I
tend to agree with those conservative commentators: Clinton’s
intent is to drag Obama into the mud pit with her. If she’s
likely to crash in Iowa, why not set up the under-funded Edwards
to emerge as her chief rival when she can bury Edwards later on
from California to New York Island under an avalanche of TV ads?
But Obama (who has slightly out-raised Clinton in the money race,
and has the warchest to go toe-to-toe with her for months on end),
also aware of caucus history, hasn’t bitten on that hook.
It
may be that it was Clinton that fell into an Obama-laid trap when
she launched the negative attacks. As Andrew Romano of Newsweek
wrote, “while Obama's ‘politics of hope’ once
prevented him from criticizing Clinton without appearing hypocritical,
it now allows him to dismiss every clever (but ultimately insubstantial)
Clinton charge as proof that she's playing ‘politics as usual’
– thereby boosting Obama's outsider appeal. What was bad for
offense is now good for defense. Listening to Obama characterize
Clinton as a typical pol is one thing; he did that for months to
little effect. But watching him bait her into behaving like one
is another. It's much more convincing.”
The
Clinton attacks on a ten-year-old Obama, a third-grade Obama and
Obama the kindergartner also carry the sleazy underside of thinly
veiled back-up to right-wing smears suggesting that those years
he spent abroad in an Islamic land mean he’s not really a
Christian (Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ). The
Washington Post’s November 28 page-one story on “Obama’s
Muslim Ties,” which has now been openly criticized by two
of the newspaper’s reporters, one of the daily’s cartoonists
and even the editor of the same story (the Post ombudsman is expected
to weigh in against the piece on Sunday) did not come out of thin
air: the spin, as with all major works by over-extended daily newspaper
political reporters, was pushed and spoon-fed by a rival campaign.
There’s no way to prove or disprove which made the attack.
But in that context came a December 5 revelation that an Iowa county
chair for Clinton by the name of Judy Rose had forwarded an email
that whacked Obama with the slur: “The Muslims have said they
plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out, what better way
to start than at the highest level - through the President of the
United States, one of their own!!!!” The Clinton campaign
called for that county chair’s resignation only after her
emails became grist for political blogs on Wednesday.
When
asked by reporters earlier this week to respond to the Clinton campaign’s
kindergarten attack, Obama’s response suggests that he is
aware that it comes with a backhanded attempt to reinforce the Manchurian
Muslim argument: “It must be silly season,” Obama said.
“I understand she's been quoting my kindergarten teacher in
Indonesia.” He then resumed the theme of that day’s
events: protecting consumers from predatory credit card company
practices. But it’s significant that Obama, without prodding,
brought up Indonesia, the unspoken part of the Clinton attacks on
his childhood years. Rather than running from the four years of
his autobiography that place him, as a kid, in the country with
the world’s largest Islamic population, Obama has frequently
pushed that experience – as well as the fact that his late
immigrant father and his living grandmother in Kenya are Muslim
– as a factor that would help him as president begin to undo
the damage of the Bush-Clinton-Bush years between the US and the
Islamic world.
Still,
the glue that ties all these missteps by Clinton and company together
is not the anti-Islamic undertone. The sticking point, and source
of tremendous personal resentment against Obama, remains generational.
The battering of a 10-year-old Obama and the subsequent slaps on
his kindergarten and third-grade essays were so over-the-top as
to reveal a very personal hatred on the part of Clinton toward the
youthfulness that he represents. If a 46-year-old Obama annoys,
the image of a K-6 Obama must really bother the aging boomer senator.
Clinton
and her team exude a divine right to the Oval Office, a sense of
entitlement, and that damn youngster Obama didn’t “wait
his turn.” These latest foibles follow last summer’s
string of Clintonian hits against Obama’s supposed “naïve”
and “inexperienced” qualities, and her top staffers’
condescending complaint in November about Obama’s young supporters,
that, “They look like Facebook.”
But
the money point is how the Clinton hostility toward younger generations
has now reached the extreme of corrupting her policy positions,
with Clinton and her staff openly seeking to suppress and demonize
young voter turnout in Iowa. (That’s also strategically stupid:
the best way to get young people to do something is to tell them
they shouldn’t or can’t do it. And Obama responded by
touring five major Iowa universities on December 4 and 5, reminding
the standing-room-only crowds that Clinton seeks to discourage them
from participating in the caucuses.)
Thus,
the Hillary Clinton that cut her political teeth as an advocate
for children’s rights, as legal counsel to Marian Wright Edelman’s
Children’s Defense Fund, as the self-proclaimed advocate,
as First Lady in the 1990s, for kids, nears the possible twilight
of her political career as a sneering adversary of youth and its
voting rights.
The
Iowa caucuses are four weeks away, but the curtain for major shifts
in momentum will close in about two weeks when the mad shopping
weekend before Christmas vacation begins. Then the campaign enters
a twilight zone in which accurate polling cannot be done (with some
demographic groups, particularly younger voters, traveling away
from home more than others), when negative attacks and ads will
not be possible (without the attacker painting herself as today’s
Ebenezer Scrooge and suffering a yuletide backlash), when New Years
and bowl games immediately precede the January 3 caucuses, and so
the dynamics, beginning around December 19, will not be subject
to major shifts.
At
this point, if current trends continue, Senator Hillary Clinton
(nee, Inevitable) may well be headed for a painful crash in the
Iowa caucuses. The famed Clinton “War Room” has become
the Panic Room. And if a black man wins the presidential caucuses
in lily-white Iowa, the resulting shock won’t only inspire
younger voters to flood the subsequent primaries and caucuses in
the coming months. African-Americans and other alienated demographic
groups will likely join the siege.
Al
Giordano, the founder of Narco News, has lived in and reported
from Latin America for the past decade. His opinions expressed in
this column do not reflect those of Narco News nor of The Fund for
Authentic Journalism, which supports his work. Al encourages commentary,
critique, additional analysis and news tips for his continued coverage
of the US presidential campaign to be sent to his email address:
narconews@gmail.com.
|