Eye Nosh: Is This the Best Pastrami in America?
Zenyatta Makes "Her"Story
Pixies 'Doolittle' @ The Palladium 11/4/09
-thumb-110x110-455795.jpg)
Build Your Own BBQ for Under 10 Bucks!
The Bravery @ the Wiltern 11/05/09
Those of you who've been following the presidential race as closely as I have (and, really, who hasn't?) are no doubt aware of the conventional wisdom surrounding Hillary Clinton's candidacy – namely that she now appears unbeatable. Pundits and reporters alike have been buzzing about her insurmountable lead – often clocking in in the high double digits – over her next two closest rivals, Obama and Edwards, for what has seemingly been weeks now.
She has been widely praised as a “disciplined” and “polished” candidate whose policy expertise and carefully crafted speeches have earned her both the support of Democratic voters and the enmity of her Republican rivals – with frontrunners Giuliani and Romney tussling over who can reposition himself as the most virulent anti-Hillary candidate. In fact, many have practically written off her competition – portraying the upcoming New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucus as little more than stepping stones on her way to being crowned the nominee at the Democratic convention.
Students of presidential history will recall a similar period in 2003 when all signs seemed to point to a Howard Dean nomination. Armed with a treasure trove of campaign cash and the rabid support of the emerging netroots, Dean's victory in the early primaries seemed almost an afterthought; John Kerry, on the other hand, was struggling just to remain afloat – his candidacy having hit one rough patch after another. Dean's disappointing third-place finish in the Iowa caucus would provoke the infamous (and much maligned) Dean “scream”; the rest, as they say, is now history.
Now there are some clear differences between Clinton's campaign and that of Howard Dean. Whereas his campaign was faulted for being undisciplined, inexperienced and lacking in its physical presence – having largely derived its momentum from an online audience – Clinton's has been described in glowing terms: “experienced,” “accomplished,” “vigilant,” and, above all, “ruthless”. Her campaign has been expertly run, with little room for gaffes or misstatements, and she has so far been cast as the decisive victor in all the past Democratic debates.
Also, one could credibly argue that we face a very different electoral season: Bush fatigue has never been higher, and Republican voters continue to express lukewarm support, at best, for their candidates (the only one who has seemingly escaped this trend being, of course, web phenom Ron Paul) while Democratic voters couldn't be happier with their options.
However, as the eminently readable Walter Shapiro reminded us in a recent piece on Salon, national polls are “little more than the political version of dream books that use nighttime visions to predict winning lottery numbers,” and that leads “can disappear as fast as footprints in the New Hampshire snow in an era of global warming”.
As has often been the case in the past, her campaign could suffer from front-runner fatigue – Iowans being notorious for punishing the perceived leading candidate – or could fall victim to some fresh controversy, scandal or combination thereof. That's not to say any of these will happen, of course; she could still manage to hold her lead until the first primary and romp off with the win.
Indeed, were I a betting man, I'd probably be inclined towards placing all my chips on Hillary; still, as she undoubtedly knows, campaign leads have a habit of rapidly changing – often in the span of a “New York minute”.
Photo courtesy of sskennel via flickr
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
If you believe the mainstream media, with the exception of Hillary Clinton, all the other candidates should just fold their tent and go home. This kind of rhetoric reminds me of a scene from the movie The Matrix. In the scene I’m thinking of, Agent Smith is holding our hero Neo in front of an oncoming train.
Agent Smith: You hear that Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability... It is the sound of your death... Goodbye, Mr. Anderson...
Neo: My name... is Neo
And with that Neo jumps away, leaving Agent Smith in front of the train. I’m just guessing here, but I’d say that it didn’t turn out like Agent Smith had expected it to.
Elections also have a funny way of not turning out the way that everyone thought they would. As you have pointed out, this is the lesson from the Dean campaign in 2004.
Yes, Hillary Clinton has raised a total of $78.6 million, slightly less than Barack Obama’s $78.9 million, but there is one very important distinction that no one is talking about. Did you know that $10 million of the $78.6 million that Hillary has raised came from Hillary Rodham Clinton, via Friends of Hillary? It seems that no one loves Hillary as much as Hillary loves Hillary. So, if you look at the facts, Hillary has not raised more than Barack. She has raised less money.
But really when it comes right down to it, does it matter who has raised $78.6 million and who has raised $78.9 million? Several candidates have raised plenty of money to remain viable including John Edwards, Mitt Romney (who has loaned his campaign $17.3 million), Rudi Giuliani, John McCain and Bill Richardson. If a candidate has a 16 lb. sledge hammer or a 12 lb. sledge hammer, who cares? They have a big enough tool (some would argue weapon) to compete in the primaries.
So, don’t believe it when you read that the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton is inevitable. When it comes to elections, nothing is predictable. No amount of money will make a candidate inevitable.
I agree with above poster. I'm for Obama and we shouldn't write anyone off just yet. Hillary is pressuring the establishment in typical Clinton fashion; support her or else. She's a sociopath just like her husband. It's time for some new political blood. Give Obama a chance in 2008.