December 21, 2007
Is Hillary doomed?
Is Hillary doomed? You might begin to wonder, from some of the recent coverage of her campaign - featuring reports of bad opinion polls, demoralised staff and a panicky candidate. Bill’s recent description of his wife as a "world-class genius" is touchingly inarticulate - but also sounds a little desperate.
Certainly the momentum is with Obama at the moment. He has sneaked ahead of Senator Clinton in the opinion polls for the Iowa caucus on January 3rd. And a USA today poll, out today, has Obama and Clinton neck-and-neck in New Hampshire. Just a month ago, she had a double digit lead in New Hampshire. If Obama wins the first two contests, then Hillary’s national lead might begin to evaoprate as the candidates head for the most populous "delegate-rich" states.
But let’s not get carried away. You can lose New Hampshire and still win the nomination, if you have the strongest national campaign - as George W.Bush showed. A national poll on December 19th had Hillary well out in front among Democrats in the country as a whole. A friend who is close to the campaign says that the American press are getting intoxicated by the Obama boomlet, because it makes the story more exciting. Hillary has no reason to panic. He adds that - "The drugs smear against Obama is working." What drugs smear, you ask? I suggest you enter the words Obama and cocaine into Google.
No, the most striking news from the December 19th poll is on the Republican side - with Rudy Giuliani close to losing his status as national front-runner and Mike Huckabee leaping up the polls in Iowa. Neither of these men strike me as appealing occupants of the White House. Giuliani’s ultra-hawkish foreign policy and Huckabee’s rejection of the theory of evolution, are both alarming in their ways.
The conventional wisdom among the pundits has always been that Giuliani would blow up soemwhere along the way. And now I’ve come across a new piece of conventional wisdom. An American banker informed me gravely that - "No man with a name like Huckabee can win an election in New York or California."
- Can somebody explain to us who are not native English speakers what, “Huckabee” means, please?
(From his descriptions, it appears that Hickabee would have been a more suitable name!)
- What is the received wisdom on Obama? Has anyone noticed that he is black and only 8 years ago Colin Powell did not stand because his wife was convinced that a black man will be assassinated if elected president?
- Does Hillary’s gender count for her or against?
- Last but not least. Does it matter who is president as far as foreign policy goes? It seems that they are all a bunch of warmongers and defer to certain lobbies and are forced to put certain foreign countries’ interests above that of America’s. Perhaps Hickabee will be the best for the NeoCons because he is as ignorant as Bush and can be hijacked and run the way they did with Bush!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 21st, 2007 at 5:54 pm | Report this comment“No man with a name like Huckabee can win an election in New York or California”. Even if this silly comment that Gideon Rachman attributes to an American banker were true, it would make no difference at all, because these two states will be in the Democratic camp anyway, no matter who the candidates are (unless the “stealth” attempt by a Giuliani supporter to steal the national election by persuading Californians to adopt a ballot initiative providing for proportional representation in its electoral college votes, resulting in an electoral vote windfall for the Republicans even as they lose in California is successful).
However, the rise of Obama/Huckabee vs. the decline of Clinton/Giuliani is a clear reaction against the machine politics that has helped to undermine American democracy by making elections more dependent on the backroom power brokers and the money men than ever before. The only two candidates who appear to have genuine core beliefs of their own (forget about Romney - his opportunistic flip-flops would make John Kerry look like a model of consistency by comparison) are John Edwards and John McCain. America would be well served by a contest between these two men, something that is unlikely to take place, however.
Posted by: algaselex | December 22nd, 2007 at 6:45 pm | Report this commentMr Rachman–Permit me the presumption to speak for others: please accept our regrets for slipping out on you so thoughtlessly in the run up to Christmas!
Your posts have been read and disgested. I’ll pass on commenting on Gore, as he disappointed me forever in his run for and response to the 2000 election.
Gordon Parkin offered a fine response on Zuma. I know Jo’burg reasonably well, and have made the usual business-trip rounds to Capetown, Pretoria and Durban. South Africa fascinates and has mastered lessons that the US could still learn from. Nonetheless, Zuma has allowed himself to play into a populist role seen elsewhere in Africa that increasingly merits concern. Externally funded populists and media democracies form critical risks for an emerging Africa.
The post of yours that concerns me most this week is that on Hillary Clinton, her prospects and the state of the campaign in the US.
Firstly, I think it is critical for the media to focus more on Team Clinton. As she has floundered, Bill’s media value/risks have returned to capture our attention (and my concerns). His record needs to be analysed more critically. US decline did not begin on 11 September 2001.
Secondly, there is too little attention or insight as to whom is supporting whom. Team Clinton will likely bring many of the same advisors, of whom many are/have been employed by the Bush Admin, especially on foreign policy and security mandates. Also, AIPAC’s money on Clinton and Giuliani needs to be examined beneath the Manhattan-Brooklyn-Queens context.
Who is behind Obama? Larry Summers can offer some thoughts on this, surely. When I was last at Harvard in September, Obama was the buzz amongst the K School chattering class. A Pritzker is leading a key staff effort. Will Rubin follow here? Will he go with Hillary, of whom his book goes less than light on?
Sadly, thanks to what one may fear is premature hype over the “success” of the Surge, it seems the Republicans are gaining back momentum on the back of a feminised/mediatised Democratic race. The most visible Dem faces of this holiday week are Hillary, Oprah and Elizabeth (and her new home and health struggle). Such women are not fighting on the policy battlefield. Hillary has stretched to play the Angela Merkel competence-over-gender approach, and lately seems to be slipping comfortably back into a strangely ill-fit Dynasty-wife mode.
Huckabee is an entertainment offering to counter this guy Stephen Colbert. That leaves McCain as a serious contender in the event that things in Iraq or elsewhere turn grim again. Giuliani likely has some staying power, but New Yorkers have little chance of winning the broad right of centre. Romney is lookling truly boring and his faith speech must have done serious damage.
That would likely leave either Obama/Clinton-McCain/Giuliani. Only an Obama presence–and win–will offer any chance of significant policy changes. It is not yet clear that the US public 1) understands fully its current policy conundrum, and 2) is ready for change.
Lastly, each of these candidates, with the exception of McCain, would prefer to put foreign policy back where it has generally been safest: on a bipartisan shelf with the belief that both parties will “do their best” with existing State and Defence resources. The US should see now that things do not work like that, although the comparative histories of Teams Clinton and Bush defy argumants to the contrary.
Posted by: WCM | December 26th, 2007 at 1:05 pm | Report this commentI find it refreshing to see such candour from a presidential candidate. Bill C’s “but I didn’t inhale” claim was as risible as it was implausible, and Bush’s past exploits are more colourful, yet there’s been no honesty from either.
Most people go through difficult searches for their own identity in their youth, and often indulge in activities that political advisors 25 years down the line wouldn’t advise.
I would rather have a leader that understands this and can draw from a breadth of life experience, than have someone who’s so closeted as to have lived a life that fits in with the political advisor’s ideal.
Anyone remember the footage of William Hague address the Tory party conference as a spotty teenager? On seeing that I instantly knew he would never get my vote, and should never be PM!
If Obama’s honesty scuppers his campaign then that’ll simply reinforce the notion in political circles that honesty is not an option - surely something we don’t want. Therefore the media should carefully examine how they present this issue: are his past digressions really a valid indication of unsuitability for political office; does the fact he faced challenges, wobbled and then righted his course show strength of character and suitability for political office; or is this a non-issue given that many baby boomers have similar skeltons in their closets?
Posted by: DKM | January 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm | Report this comment