"Angry" Change at New Hampshire Debate

I'm not just running on a promise of change... I'm running on having taken on the drug companies and the health insurance companies, taking on the oil companies... I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered.

At last night's Democratic debate in New Hampshire, a struggling candidate said real "change" demands a fight against corporate power -- "drug companies," "health insurance companies" and "taking on the oil companies" -- rather than settling for vague talk of "false hopes." The pundits swiftly labeled this an "angry" agenda. "Frankly, I don't even really understand" the argument, lamented ABC's Jake Tapper, "what I was getting was how angry" it sounded. Fierce change was definitely the priority last night: the word came up 80 times in the Democratic debate. (Bush and Iraq each netted 25 references, for comparison.) And sure, Hillary Clinton was fired up when she delivered the above remarks, channeling the messages of the two leading candidates in the Democratic race.

Clinton tried to portray herself as an experienced fighter who can deliver results on the issues that her rivals put on the agenda. She aims to co-opt Obama's change and Edwards' populism. It is an understandable strategy; most Iowa voters prioritized a candidate who "can bring change" over experience or electability, (according to entrance polls). But watching Hillary Clinton talk up change and the fight against corporate power is like slapping a Greenpeace bumper sticker on a Hummer. She has spent her entire campaign -- and her career as an elected official -- working within the framework of the Washington establishment. That's not a rare or terrible thing. It means she is a traditional domestic policy liberal and foreign policy centrist (by Washington standards), with an emphasis on solving problems through negotiation over social change. In other words, she's like most Democratic senators and the party's last nominee. But that makes it quite hard for her to co-opt change and populism in the coming days, even if her rhetoric now strikes some as "angry."

This post first appeared at The Nation's campaign blog. For more commentary on the Democratic race, here's a CNBC debate I recently did from Iowa.

Update: In response to this post, here's an interesting comment from reader TribunusPlebis, (which may be one of the only blog handles named after a breakaway group of Romans who fought for poor people's rights in the 5th Century B.C.E.). Anyway, the comment:

Barack Obama, who seems to have offended no one else in his march through Iowa, has obviously ticked off Hillary Clinton, but not because of what she claims, i.e. that she's the real agent of change rather than him. No, her tantrum at tonight's debate in New Hampshire is more likely a case of displaced anger. She's unhappy that she lost in Iowa to someone she regards as her inferior. The subtext of Mrs. Clinton's attack on Obama and Edwards, as unqualified agents of change, seems equally obvious: She's saying that their candidacies are purely rhetorical, whereas hers is substantive -- that her resume entitles her to win. This also implies that Iowans -- who saw and talked to all these candidates for months -- somehow neglected to notice or value Mrs. Clinton's biography. Excuse me: We all know Mrs. Clinton's biography. It is old news, not new news. Will implicitly slamming her competitors' backgrounds convince New Hampshire voters to embrace her? Can you persuade someone who you're wooing to love you, by lambasting two other suitors? The question answers itself. Iowa told us something, loud and clear: This election is not going to be about what people did in the past. It's going to be about what must be done in the future. (emphasis added.)

Comments

[littleblackcat]

Hillary would be a change, she is a woman and that would be a first. However, she is "old Washington" with her ties to lobbyists, corporations, and the Old Guard Senators and Congresspeople. The nation needs someone who doesn't know the road so looks before turning. New leadership owes no old favors. Thirty-five years in politics means a lot of people have pulled a string or two for you and now they are likely to call you on it. Far better to have fresh ideas and good people around you to offer their input, which might also include some fresh ideas. You get too used to the same old brew. Time to scrub the coffeepot and make a fresh pot. Edwards or Obama would suit the nation fine, and they should make sure there are strong, important positions for people like Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden. These are all people of integrity, knowledge, skill, and conscience. Put the bush family in prison and the Clinton family out to pasture and get down to the work of getting this country back on the road to self-sustaining pride and productivity

[Obamagrl]

It's ironic. Hillary, in her CDF days, would have likely fought for the positions Obama now takes.

[daybranch]

why is everything about Hillary or Obama? They are, either one, the hope of the republican party for another 4 years in the white house. And neither represents any threat to the staus quo - Obama just wants a happier more united America, and Hillary does not want to make too many promises. Both sound like they have received and depend on big business money. Give Edwards some real coverage- do not let Obama or Hilllary with the help of big business buy the presidency once again.

[factanonverba]

Part Two

She seems offended that her credentials are being challenged. So be it but what should we say when as a Senator, Mrs. Clinton was a willing and largely unrepentant participant in the dramatic expansion of Executive Power. Government is broken on many different levels but in my mind the most dangerous aspect is the erosion of the checks and balance inherent in the Constitution. We have had a pliant Congress for too long and now we have one that is ineffectual, spineless is the best description but we also have a Judiciary that has been politicized and whose legal sharpness has been dulled by mediocre appointments from the Supreme Court on down. That happened on their watch. When I read Naomi Wolf's Letter to a Young Patriot last year, one of the two most important books I read in 2008 (the other being the other Naomi, Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine), I perceived then it was important to impart to the younger generation. So I bought three copies for the kids of a few friends of mine and told them to read and pass it on to their friends. Perhaps they did and perhaps others did as well because they seem to have taken up the mantle of defending the rights and liberties of this Republic.

[factanonverba]

Part One
In that exchange between them, I was left dizzy by all that change in the air. How many times was the word used? Two score in two minutes or once every three seconds. Richardson got it right when he noted he had been in hostage negotiations that were more civil.

It seems to me that we are on the verge of a generational shift. It is somewhat remarkable that when all is said and done the baby boomers will have provided but 16 years of Presidential leadership. It should be noted they unseat the WW II generation perhaps one cycle early and firmly closed the door on "the greatest generation" with Dole's defeat in 1996. That was their last hurrah and it looks increasingly evident that Mrs. Clinton is the last gasp of the baby boomers, the only demographic she carried in Iowa was women over 60.

It is no doubt difficult to pass the torch, to loosen the reins and certainly the Clinton campaign positioned itself an inevitable event, treating her opposition as if they were a mere nuisance rather than perhaps giving them credit where credit was due.

[Janco54]

If she's been all about "change" over the last 35 years why is everything the same?

[LeftRight]

All that I know is that I will vote for her, if through some strange chance she wins the nomination, because I can't stand another 4-8 years of rethuglican "leadership", but there is no way in hell she will get my vote in the primary. I figured it out, the last time that a Bush or a Clinton was not in charge, I was either 1, or 9, depending on whether you count daddy's Veep time or not. I'm tired of Bush and Clinton, whether or not she could do it!

[peaceandfreedom]

"I am an agent of change," she said. "I embody change. I think having the first woman president is a huge change."

I mean, seriously, this is either the Coen Brothers satire, or she is channeling George Bush's facility with language

[peaceandfreedom]

Hillary reminds me of the scene in "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou," where the Governor and his inept brain trust are taking about their opponent being the Candidate of Reform.

One of the sidemen suggests that, "Maybe we should get us some of that Reform, too!"

Maybe Hillary needs to get the Coen Brothers to start writing her stuff for her. At least it would be funny--still pitiful--but funny.

[BUSHsurvivor]

Obama, votes for Patriot Act and continued funding for the Iraq occupation, yet running for Senate he says he would not. Is that what he means by change?

[JD8]

Words are not change. Hillary Clinton is not about change no matter how much she says she is. We want change! The Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton spin cycle is not working anymore. Hillary Clinton"s most important "experience" at not changing anything was messing up healthcare reform in the early nineties, voting for the war in Iraq, and most recently just a few weeks ago proving she hasn't learned a thing by voting for the Bush warmongering bill to declare Iran's military to be "terrorists." Neither did Hillary"s husband Bill help her out of any of these bad decisions. Unlike Hillary, Obama was right on Iraq from the start. He has promoted ethics reform in Congress. He doesn't take lobbyist or 527 money. He is a unifier, not a divider. United we stand, divided we fall. No unity, no change. It's that simple.

[jdbid1]

I am not by any stretch a Hillary Clinton fan but once again the media is making something out of nothing. I have listened to her response and to characterize it as "angry" is nothing less than a media twisted characterization. They have to have a story to sell so they have given her response the Howard Dean treatment. Just like the media brought down Howard Dean, they seem intent to do the same to Clinton.

[Doofus]

In Barack Obama, we finally see Adlai
Stevenson, but *with* charisma. He has hit
his stride, indeed. I think we are just about
done here. Or maybe it's just starting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/03/obama-hits-his-stride-as-_n_79458.html

[joja]

TribunisPlebis got it perfect -- she, like George W. before her, believes she's ENTITLED to the nomination just because she is who she is -- a member of American political royalty.

Apparently she didn't get the memo from Iowa -- the peasants are at the gates with pitchforks!

[Miket53]

Could have been a turning point for the Dems. Hillary's outburst last night at the debates is a great example of what Americans don't want. Not presidential....not showing she can lead. After being accused of not representing "change" by Edwards she blew up. Yelling...pointing....not a leader. Her anger showed she is ticked off for not being the automatic winner this year. Just screeching out anger. That is not what is needed, I think that moment will be referred to as her "Dean Scream" after she loses this year. And did I hear Obama try to say that the surge didn't work but the violence died down because the terrorists saw that Democrats are being elected and therefore they feel the US will leave soon? Is he claiming they are fighting Republicans? Talk about naive!! And they all agreed...the US needs to surrender to the terrorists and run away. How can any of them think that is being a leader? Not what I want running the country.
Miket

http://mtaricani.blogspot.com/