An Analysis on Clinton After Iowa

Let's be frank: There are more than a few levels on which what has happened in Iowa -- and its carryover -- is the Clintons' worst nightmare. The shining aspect of the Clintons' politics has always been their understanding of the tragedy of race in America. Each has spoken eloquently -- publicly and privately -- of the day when a black candidate for president would capture the imagination of the country, and be elected.

But never did the Clintons anticipate that it might occur on Hillary's watch as a candidate for president herself, in opposition to them.

Twice, as a teenager, she went to hear Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. preach, and his effect on her was profound. When he was killed, Hillary was a student at Wellesley College. Her reaction on hearing of his death was almost a breakdown.

"I can't stand it any more! I can't take it," she screamed, and threw her bookbag against the wall. She was shaking and shouting. (She subsequently led student protests at Wellesley demanding increased black admissions, and other compensatory responses.)

Years later, when she moved into the White House, her chief of staff was Maggie Williams, a black woman. Her mentor, as a lawyer and children's advocate, was Marion Wright Edelman, a black woman. Bill Clinton has often identified his three heroes as Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy, and Dr. King.

* * * *

On Thursday night, Barack Obama concluded a remarkable, stirring speech that, whatever the outcome of the 2008 election, it will be regarded as historic. CNN's Anderson Cooper and I discussed on-air what we were witnessing.

Her "third place finish to Barack Obama" was "probably the worst outcome for her today," Cooper observed.

But the circumstances were worse than merely finishing third, or Obama's stunning 40 percent of the vote, I responded. Seventy percent of Democratic voters in Iowa had voted against her. When she finally met in a ballroom with her supporters after the numbers were beyond redeem, she gave a tired variation of her stump speech - in stark contrast to Obama's sense of the history of the occasion.

Obama's campaign was becoming a crusade.

"This is a great night for Democrats," Hillary, no longer her party's frontrunner had announced. "Together, we have presented the case for change and have made it absolutely clear that America needs a new beginning."

Cooper asked, "How does Hillary Clinton now go on tomorrow?" He added that Bill Clinton would continue to campaign with his wife in New Hampshire.

Watching the former president on the screen, I responded: "You could see the devastation on Bill Clinton's face tonight. They are going to have to regroup. They are going to have to come up with a different rationale for this campaign, because what we heard Obama say tonight is: this is about Republicans. This is about independents. There's going to be a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party, not just in New Hampshire, but through all those 20 Super Tuesday states. And that fight is going to be about who can best reach out and unite the country -- because Obama knows that the rap on Hillary Clinton is that she's polarizing, is that she's divisive.

"And the Clintons now have to come up with a rationale that shows they are not [a divisive force] and they can unite the country, unite the party. It's a very difficult thing to pull off, after that inspirational speech, on top of which, you know, you looked at the people behind Hillary and Bill Clinton. They were old faces." Among them, Madeline Albright, the Clinton Secretary of State; Terry McAuliffe, the family fund-raiser.

"Another thing that has been repudiated tonight is this idea of restoration of the Clintons plural, to the White House," I said. "That was an underlying issue here. And it figures with the age-group breakdown that we have seen in CNN's exit and entrance polls. So, there has to be a whole new rationale. Why is Hillary Clinton now qualified to be the president of the United States, and what does she do to unite this country?"

* * * *

Hillary Rodham Clinton is nothing if not resilient.

Perseverance and resilience -- especially in response to humiliation (make no mistake: the rejection of her candidacy in Iowa was a real humiliation) -- are the strongest threads in the tapestry of her life, along with religion and family.

On Friday, traveling to New Hampshire the day after the devastation of Iowa, Hillary and her apparat embraced the "change theme" that she had previously ridiculed Obama for asserting and mocked with her mantra of "experience."

"[T]he message in New Hampshire has been working," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson insisted following the Iowa caucuses. "It's who she is as a person, her experience making change, the importance of picking a president that is ready. That won't change."

It is difficult to imagine how she is going to steal the "change" issue from Obama.

In the paperback edition of my biography of Hillary Clinton, "A Woman In Charge," there is this conclusion in a new afterword written in October:

"Inside the Clinton machine, the Obama challenge and, in particular, its central claim of representing necessary change in what Democrats had to offer, made an impression. 'She realizes she can't match him in the change department,' said Deborah Sale [one of the Clintons' oldest and closest friends. ] 'He's of a different generation and she's been around for a long time. The Clinton administration is a very big plus for her, but it's also a minus. And she knows it. She can hardly deny it. She emphasizes the positive. No one expected this kind of opposition, and she knows he's strong and savvy.'"

The afterword concludes:

"So, in the end, Hillary for President had come down to Restoration, a co-presidency in which all the considerable talents and experiences of both Clintons and the hard lessons learned by each would be applied to reversing the catastrophes, ennui, and grievous misgovernance" of the Bush presidency.

"[T]he task was to convince voters that the Restoration would not be a voyage back to the future but rather would entrust the nation's governance to the stewardship of a magical political pair whose priorities were indeed 'progressive' in the best sense, moving forward carefully from the perilous era just past, but with ideas culled from their vast experience and association with the brightest and best minds, with Bill's voracious intellectualism, and with her sturdy, can-do optimism and rigor....

"They were very much a team, and that is how they increasingly presented themselves.... 'I'm running because I think I can win and I can take the White House back for us, and, frankly, build on the positive of the nineties and avoid some of the mistakes,' she said. She did not define us."

Carl Bernstein, a CNN contributing analyst, is the author of "A Woman In Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton." The paperback, with a new afterword, will be released on Tuesday, the day of the New Hampshire primary. To learn more go to carlbernstein.com

This post first appeared on CNN's Political Ticker.

Comments

[GinnyGee]

Having been part of a large scale corporate layoff, I'm currently going out on interviews -- trying to persuade potential employers of the reasons why I would be an asset to their firms. Were I to apply for the TOP SPOT at a company without substantive industry experience, but insist that I'm the ideal candidate for the position because I represent "change", I believe I'd be met with the same blank stare with which I look at the TV screen and see the numbers coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire. And I'm not applying to be leader of the strongest nation on earth at a time of the greatest global threats in the past half century!

I certainly want reforms in this country. But, since when did knowing the ropes, negate the possibility of being an effective leader? Our nation has been terribly wounded by seven years of the current administration. We can little afford to repeat the on-the-job-training requirements of 2000. Hillary, I'M standing by you.

[longislandlol]

Hillary comes off as the schoolmarm we all had a love/hate relationship with, back in elementary school....

[MrMurder]

Obama is not against continuing occupation in Iraq.

That means all of his change happy young supporters will be ready to answer the need for a draft!

Someone tells you change, ask them what kind of change. Bush said he'd bring about change in 2000, boy did he ever.

Bush didn't like Social Security either, perhaps he and Barack have ears tuned to the same song...

[MrMurder]

Scrutiny to Obama's own recent statements shows greater inconcistency.
"There are many possible explanations for this latest outbreak of the delusional style. An ever-intensifying cult of celebrity personality-worship, the more sentimental the better, may finally have overwhelmed precincts of political commentary. (Obama's sidekick, Oprah Winfrey, is, after all, the reigning master of that cult.) Democrats may simply be so battered after what the Globe calls "seven desolating years" that they are looking for a man on a white horse to deliver them from despair--and so they have invented one."
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1f22d28c-ced2-4761-b350-77f3513928ac
"In 2004, the Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama"s primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In 2007, Obama was quoted in the AP saying, ""I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." Obama is listed as a "Senior Lecturer in Law (on leave of absence)," not a law professor, on the University of Chicago law school web site. [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/8/04; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04; AP, 3/30/07; law.uchicago.edu]" -Slate.com

Gene Lyons weighs in with greater emphasis on the current covnersation as well:
"Also, Democrats hold small majorities in both houses. Hence, mewling cries are being heard that ugly partisan wrangling is preventing Americans from joining together in one big joyous hootenanny and solving our problems. One Democratic presidential candidate, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, appears to be basing his campaign on this fond delusion, although his "bipartisanship" consists largely of attacking rivals" motives while recycling right-wing scare stories like the imaginary Social Security crisis, then offering himself as a healer." -Gene Lyons
http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Editorial/212492/

[krocklin]

bernstein is just parrotting the rightwing talking points: hillary is "divisive".

yeah, they hate her so shes divisive to THEM.

shes rational for one thing. and that's too divisive a stand to take among the lunatic fringe that dominates the republican party.

shes fallen way behind obama supposedly in the polls new hampshire. thats because republicans can vote in the democratic primaries in new hampshire.

among democrats she still clearly leads, but the media hasnt included that in the headlines.

[JacktheBlogger]

Marketing 101 demands that your message be tailored to your market segment. Hillary needs to decide if she wants to even bother with the notoriously unreliable Gen Y market segment (18-26 years old), which might show up for the primaries but not turn out in the general election. It's largely Gen Y that is fueling the Barack Obama campaign on the Democratic side and the Ron Paul campaign on the Republican side.

Hillary might be better off honing her message of "change" slightly differently to the Gen X segment (27-42 years old) instead. This segment might be more appreciative of a candidate who represents change that can only be brought about through actual experience. Thus Hillary might want to appeal to this crowd with a message such as:

REAL CHANGE REQUIRES RELEVANT EXPERIENCE.

Hillary Clinton's experience and track record establishes her as the most RELIABLE, RESILIENT, and READY candidate to assume the presidency of the United States.

HILLARY: RELIABLE, RESILIENT, and READY!

[cseper]

The Clintons are the only Dems to beat the Republicans in 30 years for POTUS. +4 terms as governor of a border state. Hillary scared Guiliani out her senate race.

Obama beat Alan Keyes.

[massimo1]

What I don't get is this: her own party rejects her, a majority avows it will not vote for her if she wins the nomination. So why does she keep shoving herself in our faces in spite of not being who democrats want? Does she think that if only we'd get to know her, we'd forgive, forget, and let her take charge? Hillary, go home!

[go4thegold]

HRC is resilliant for sure... that's why we're going to hear all over again about Whitewater, Travelgate, all of the scandals that have plagued her in the past. The fact that the press ordained her queen without asking the people is just another example of the jaded, unbalanced writing and reporting from people just like Bernstein... D.

[StillAmused]

"... the Clintons now have to come up with a rationale that shows they are not [a divisive force] and they can unite the country, unite the party. It's a very difficult thing to pull off..."

... especially with the bulk of the media, yourself included, dutifully repeating it -- ad nauseum -- as a substitute for legitimate issue analysis.

Frankly, the mainstream media has shown itself far more apt at rehashing the latest bling on Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton. Now THAT'S news...

[Steamboater]

From an historic point of view, it's worrying that either Clinton or Obama will get the nomination. In the 20th century, senators seldom won presidential elections; it's usually governors. The only one in the top three among democrats who's no longer a senator is Edwards. Of course, if Obama or Clinton go up against McCain there's history twisted but McCain won't get the nomination and both Huckabee and Romney are ex-governors. Then you have Guiliani who's an ex-mayor and he won't get the GOP nod.

[JohnCitizen]

CONGRATULATIONS TO IOWA AGAIN!

America should congratulate Iowans for doing their duty again, that is, picking the worst possible Democratic candidate, as they have done frequently including John Kerry in 2004. Part of the problem is the crazy Iowa caucus system, but the biggest factor is allowing Republicans to help pick the Democrat who they think is easiest to defeat. Someday, just maybe, America will have a primary system where the real swing states (right now FLORIDA and OHIO) decide who the candidate is? Of course, that would be logical, meaningful and ridiculous. Now instead, we get the government we deserve!

[Kenji]

In some ways, she would make a better president than a candidate -- a common problem with Dems, it seems. But much as many voters (including myself) are not drawn to Mrs. Clinton, can there be any doubt that it will now be easier for a charismatic woman to rise to the top because of her?

[LesHamilton]

I remember that first time in my youth when I became politically engaged. I am a Canadian and it was when Pierre Trudeau first came on the scene running for the leadership of the federal Liberal party in the late 60"s. Trudeau had the same aura as Obama, a keen intellect, a rapier wit, style, and a set of lofty principles, which included his platform called the Just Society in the case of Trudeau. I remember how keenly I felt that something important was happening and that I wanted to be part of it. I can see the same engagement is probably happening with Obama"s young followers.

Although with distance I can see that Trudeau turned out to be a mixed bag and a go-it-alone type of guy, he became one of, if not, our greatest prime ministers and a well known international leader. It would be interesting to see if Obama gets that chance for the U.S.

[Lisette]

Good article!
I think Hillary is already finished.
She can't stop Obama.
And I, for one am glad.
It would be awful to have to put up with the Clintons again.
They don't even seem human anymore, more like cartoons of themselves.