Ruth Marcus, writing in today's Washington Post, thinks she may have lost already. "The era of Clinton inevitability ended in school gymnasiums and community centers across this state Thursday night."
It's hard not to agree with Marcus' assessment when one looks at the Iowa race up close and personal, as Marcus did in Indianola. For starters, Obama's inclusiveness was enormously attractive to many. Combine that with a "well-oiled" political machine and we'd have to say (with morning-after wisdom) that he began to look, well, inevitable.
But it wasn't just Obama who was winning. It was the whole Democratic slate. Caucus-goers were choosing among several favorite candidates, not opting for the least of several evils. Still, there was no question but that Hillary was just too entrenched to be really attractive.
What was striking in Indianola, and across the state, was the pull of Obama's optimistic, inclusive message and the way his well-oiled field operation was able to translate that appeal into caucusgoers. Obama played the role of inspiring healer/transformer to John Edwards's fiery populist and Hillary Clinton's ultra-capable technocrat. Clinton was selling what one unaffiliated Democratic strategist described as the "charisma of competence" -- a la Scoop Jackson in 1976, and with similarly dreary results. If Obama was at times more gauzy than precise about exactly what change he would bring, that didn't seem to matter much to the voters who flocked to him in the end.
Voters such as Kristie Fisher, 37, who was still "soul-searching" when I met her at a Clinton rally in Cedar Rapids on Wednesday. Fisher was attracted to Clinton's "experience and exposure" but also worried about the dynastic implications of keeping the White House under the control of two families for so long. Thursday night she went for Obama, citing "a different kind of feeling and energy" from the freshman senator. "What she was saying wasn't different enough for me," Fisher said.
Clinton is now projected by some as the surefire loser in New Hampshire. Maybe, says Marcus.
After Obama's clear victory over Clinton in Iowa, "I don't think she can win New Hampshire," one Democratic strategist said flatly, pointing to the negligible recovery time before Tuesday's primary there. "To me, the real issue for New Hampshire is how she loses it" -- meaning, with what retooled message, and by how much.
Elsewhere in the Post, reporters Michael Shear and Peter Baker focus on another element in the current race which militates against a Hillary recovery: the primary schedule.
When George W. Bush stumbled here in his quest for the presidency in 2000, he had 18 days to recover before the next major primary. But the erstwhile front-runners humbled in Iowa this week emerged with just five days to get back on their feet, slow down their rivals and salvage their campaigns.
This time it's a little less realistic to count on New Hampshire's independent nature.
The Iowa losers are also counting on New Hampshire's contrarian streak; it has frequently chosen a different favorite than its Midwestern cousin. But the usual eight days between the contests has now been cut nearly in half, leaving little time for the victors' media bounce to fade. Once a sense of momentum builds around a campaign, strategists said, it becomes awfully hard to turn things around in a short time frame.
One "veteran" Clinton adviser tells the New York Times: "“Hillary says she’ll change things, but then voters see Bill and hear them talk about the 1990s, and it’s clear that the Clintons are not offering change but rather Clinton Part 2. That won’t win.”
Maybe all this gloom and doom about Hillary's chances are just what her campaign needs to get some energy back and win in New Hampshire. All we know is that Iowa was a surprise. Maybe New Hampshire will be another kind of surprise altogether. How's that for a reliable prediction?!
Comments