Hillary Clinton's Serious Iowa Problem

To begin with, I don't know who is going to win the Iowa Caucuses. The absolute truth is the pundits and others can guess all they want, but nobody really knows. There are simply too many pieces to the puzzle, and it's all those pieces that make the Iowa Caucuses the most intriguing electoral process in American politics.

My intention, and I want to be clear that I don't have permission, is to speak out for all the Democratic presidential campaigns by saying that a win (or a strong showing in some of the candidates' cases) in Iowa is of critical importance. That said, I am constitutionally incapable of sitting back in good conscience and quietly listening to Hillary Clinton's words to the people in Iowa and then her 180-degree spin to the national press.

Hillary Clinton has a serious political problem. From the get-go her campaign pushed her to the press and her contributors as the "inevitable" candidate. Her problem is if you bill yourself as the "inevitable" nominee in a presidential nominating race, you had better be right because there is no fall-back position. Now that her "inevitability" is under serious scrutiny, she is running around Iowa telling Iowans that she loves them, they are important, and she has to have them, while at the same time, she is spinning to the national press that Iowa is not so important that she has to win there to secure the nomination. The absolute truth is with a campaign team that looks like the 1927 New York Yankees and with all the resources she has thrown at Iowa, a bad showing from Hillary can only reinforce what so many of us have been saying all along. If she can't win Iowa, she has absolutely no chance to win the general. It's that simple.

Next Thursday night when she doesn't win the Iowa Caucuses, she will immediately say that Iowa is not all that important, which in my mind is not only denigrating all those Iowa Caucus goers who have taken their time to take a great look at all of the candidates, but it also gives all Americans a great look at what's to come.

After next Thursday night, Hillary Clinton will resort to the only conceivable option she has left. With the huge coffers she has accumulated from raising funds from the many who have a financial stake in the next administration, she's going to try to flood the media markets for February 5 and buy the damned thing. It's that simple

To paraphrase Mr. Lincoln, "You can fool some of the people all the time, but in the case of the Clinton campaign, everybody can see this trick coming." My greatest hope is the blogosphere and the national media won't let them get away with it.

Comments

[pennyfortheguy]

mudcat

[pennyfortheguy]

Not if Helen Reddy has anything to say in the matter.
It used to be that the ubiquitous 'fat lady' was the final arbiter. Since the trend to Jenny Craig has increased, it is now Helen at the mic.
Roar.

[lastdays]

Yeah! Hillary will win the general, if nominated. She will be running against a Republican and I do believe that the American people will want to punish the Republicans for the last 7 years, not Hillary for the previous 8. I'll vote for Edwards in the 1st round as he's the only guy that sounds vaguely like a liberal (in the top tier). Then, I'll sigh deeply, hold my nose and vote for the Democrat in the general. I just hate to vote for people who have been dumping on their own constituency, especially when that constituency is me. That is one thing I admire about Republicans. They do have a certain loyalty to their own political ideals.

[kathcalla]

Camillian Clinton: not for president.

[LenP]

She can't win the general.

It's that simple.

Next!

[KenSmith]

There are four good reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton:

1. She is married to Bill Clinton, who should be tried for war crimes -- not as bad as George W. Bush, but close. (NAFTA is not a war crime, but it should be.) So, Hillary, dump Bill and you will be one step closer to getting my vote.

2. A great majority of Americans are opposed to continuing the war in Iraq, but not Hillary. Come out firmly against this war, and she could win the popular vote -- maybe not the Iowa caucus vote because that's rigged. Why does somebody like Ron Paul have such dedicated supporters? Because he is firmly against the war in Iraq. As things now stand, I'm voting for Kucinich in the primary. In the general, I will probably vote for Ron Paul because he will not get the Republican nomination and he will probably run as an independent. Neither Kucinich nor Paul can win their primaries, but I will know that I've done the right thing. Rewriting an earlier mantra, "It's the war, stupid."

3. For millions of men over 40 and in their second marriage, Hillary sounds like an ex-wife. "Who cares about those sexist pigs?", some of the earlier commenters here might be saying now. Well, those white males can swing the election. Hillary doesn't have to make major changes in her stump speeches, but just be aware of the concerns and problems peculiar to white males -- 99% of whom are not wealthy CEOs.

4. Hillary should avoid getting snagged by the Republicans on issues such as abortion, women's rights and gay marriage. It is not that those issues are wrong, but rather that the war in Iraq and the imploding economy are far important. If Hillary focused on ending the war immediately and addressed the real reasons why our economy is in the tank, she could win primaries and maybe even the general election.'

[tenilla]

I voted for Bill Clinton twice but I will never vote for Hillary. I know so many Democrats who say the same thing. If she cared about this country, she would not run.

I find her new perfectly modulated voice even
more grating than her old shrill one.

Why won't Edwards and Obama form a union to block her?

[Transrational]

Never Have
Never Will
Vote for the wife
of a man named Bill.

[therealredstateblues]

""You can fool some of the people all the time, but in the case of the Clinton campaign, everybody can see this trick coming." ================

A very poigniant observation. It isllustrates the now very predictable nature of the Clintonian "trying to have it both ways" duplicity.

People are also becoming cognizant of "its the record stupid" - her record on Iraq, Iran, trade, coprorate lobbying and so forth.

Contrary to what Northeasterners and inside the beltway folks think, we midwesterners do know the difference between sh*t and Shinola.

[JoAnnCr]

Rasmussen Reports has kept tabs on match up polls for this whole election season. "If the election were held today..." comparing each Dem. with each Rep. Check it out.

Edwards has consistently done better than any other Democratic contender including Clinton and Obama from the very beginning.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

[RAMHaiti]

Mr Saunders,
You're so in tune? It's like you're on the pulse.
By the way, can you tell me who's ahead in New York, or Maine for that matter, or Florida, or California, or Michigan? How about Arizona or Delaware? I'll bet you New Jersey is for Hillary. I'll bet you Pennsylvania is too.

[RAMHaiti]

Hillary is ahead. Truth Hurts.

[RAMHaiti]

We can blah blah all we want. It's what we do. And sometimes with our blah blah we try and change perception of reality.

Hillary Clinton is ahead in just about every state across the country and yet when I read so many of these blogs I get the impression they want me to believe otherwise, and yet I don't.

I've been watching character assassination of Hillary Clinton for the last fifteen years and yet she remains a remarkable woman and her accomplishments are so incredible that we try and reduce them to make others seem worthy.

Go Hillary!!

[kcgeban]

Democrats are losers and, apparently, cannibals as well. They are always more than ready to eat their own. The Republicans will win the presidency because they play to win, even when it means playing dirty. If Hillary is Republican-lite", then she is superbly capable of beating the GOP.
Obama will never command the kind of support from Afro-Americans that the Clintons do. And if he cannot obtain OUR support That's right I am black!) he is even less capable of obtaining wider support. Edwards has proven that he cannot win. Remember 2004?
Hillary Clinton must be the nominee.

[freemoose]

WOW...
I don't think there's anything Sexist about following the money. According to the July 21 L.A. Times,p. A21, Hillary &(Obama) far outpace John Edwards in contributions from Hedge Funds & Private Equity Firms. So he has a southern accent. Big deal.

[kjg25171]

It is the Kyl-Lieberman vote which permanently turned me away from Hillary Clinton. Listening to her justification was eerily similar to her justification for the Iraq resolution. I am an ardent feminist and find it demeaning that there are women supporting HRC just because she is a woman. Remember Martin Luther King's words about being "judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin" I would add to that not by their gender.

[LyricalLexicon]

Hillary has never held a executive position in a business or in government and has been in the Senate for only 7 years yet she continues to brag about her 35 years of experience. I'm still waiting for an answer to what this experience is. Time as a first lady doesn't qualify as experience. Just because you spend 8 years riding as a passenger in a car doesn't mean you can jump in the driver's seat and call yourself an experienced driver.

[Daria]

Ms. Huffington and some other democrats, you all know the right wing republicans are not going to vote for Obama--not just right wing, but republican men are not going to do it. What do polls show that white people will lie when it comes to a black candidate. They will tell the pollsters one thing and do another. They thought in Virgina that Doug Wilder would win in a landslide based on polls. The polls said. If Obama wins the nomination--he will be history in November2008, as much as I hate to see that happen. So you Barack-white Democrats--see what happens with your right-wing--Southern-midwestern-southwestern Republican race car drivers, red necks, confederate flag wavers--they are out there ready and waiting for Rudy.
Just wait and see.

[apcalc]

Most of the anti Hillary stuff on this site is posted by:
a. right "wingnuts" who want people to think Democrats are divided, and probably are misogynistic and are probably Bush voters (need I say more about their judgement?) or are
b. idealists -like those who voted for Nader.

Be careful - vote for the Democratic nominee......you want Mitt? Rudy? Huckabee?
Be very careful...........

[apcalc]

Oh one more thing - it is my belief that most of the anti-Hillary stuff on here is
a. put on by the right wingnuts...to let people think the Dems are divided or
b. put on by people who voted for Nader - idealists who helped put Bush in office...........

Vote for any Democrat who gets the nomination........want Rudy? Huckabee?. Mitt?

Be careful...very careful.

[apcalc]

Given that Obama is all style and no substance (voting "present" on controversial issues)it amazes me that Huffington post so blatantly supports him.

I am a strong Democrat but I just cannot vote for him. His plans are not well thought out, and he has virtually no experience. He talks 'change', yet has no real idea how to accomplish that. Everything is vague, but polished. He claims he voted against the war, but also saw no intelligence, as did Biden, Clinton, and others who voted to authorize Bush to go to war. So, I think he is just spouting off to take advantage.

Edwards has practically lived in Iowa. He ought to be ahead. He leads in no state.

Also, Clinton leads every Republican in every poll except Zogby, which is internet based and unreliable. Check out pollingreport.com to see.

Hillary will win Iowa and the nomination.

[marcialosangeles]

And the next thing you know, Hillary's campaign will be lowering the expectations of her finish in Iowa!! Can you imagine anything so dreadful. Her campaign staff is so full of tricks. It is really outrageous to even contemplate such a thing. No one ever does such things. It is just like the Clintons. Barack, for instance, would never say he is bringing something totally new to Washington and then be so dim as to brag that 40 of his top foreign affairs adviors are from the Clinton White House. That would be duplicitous. Obama, who strongly opposed the Iraq war from the get-go would certainly have supported Ned Lamont, the anti-war candidate in the CT US Senate priamry. Oops. NO, he supported Lieberman. Well, certainly Obama would never have confirmed Condi Rice for Sec of State--she was the main spokesperson for the invasion. Wrong again. He voted to confirm her. Well, then, just what is new about the new direction of Barack Obama. I give up. Did he go back to the Senate to stand on the floor and talk against the Iranian National Guards as terrorists. Nope. Well, did he return to the Senate chambers to prevent the passage of the FISA extension. That would be a NO, also. I honestly cannot not find the new in Obama's new direction. Maybe you can point them out.

[spectator27]

I think Obama and Edwards have both spent more than Hilliary. Edwards has virtually lived in Iowa.

[golferling]

Sexism run rampant in this blog. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Hillary is the smartest for the job..and she will NOT be manipulated by the good ol boys...wake up, and enter the 21st century. You people sound like you were the type that elected Bush because you liked him and would like to have a beer with him, so he got your vote. Your thinking is CRAP. Hillary in 2008..all you sexist pigs get used to it.

[speakingtruth2power]

Voters around the country are undecided but for the Democrats, it will come done to evaluating the negatives, considering the electability and most importantly, believability. By the time the votes are counted, John Edwards will become the candidate we Dems want to fight for US.

Hillary is old school politics and people don't believe that she will end the war that Bush started. Obama calls for change but votes just like Hillary and even though many say they would vote for a Black man, some of them aren't ready, yet.

The best ticket possible for the Democrats and the worst for the GOP is Edwards/Obama, the Tag Team from Camelot. No administration can solve all our problems but one that we can believe in, that inspires US to be better, is where we need to start.