Clinton, Edwards, & Obama: What Must They Do In New Hampshire?

1. Hillary Rodham Clinton's Challenge: The Clinton people absolutely have to win in New Hampshire. Not because they'll otherwise be out of money or staying power. They could conceivably battle for delegates through all the states and try to win the nomination in a slugfest at the Democratic National Convention in Denver--the way Ted Kennedy tried to do with Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980. But if the Clintons do that, even if they win the nomination, they will have divided the Party and the nation so much that winning a general election will be difficult, if not impossible. (If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, expect the Bloomberg, Hagel, Nunn, et. al group of "moderates" in Oklahoma to try an independent run at the White House.) And, the "inevitability" narrative is completely toast if H.R. Clinton gets anything but first place in NH. If she wins, she can say that Iowa was an aberration and Obama a flash in the pan (and is already saying it), but even if she comes in a close 2nd, I think she's mortally wounded.

Clinton is still leading in NH, according to the polls, (but are any post-Iowa?) but NH Democrats are liberal--and liberal Democrats are angry with Clinton on Iraq & Iran (not just her initial vote, but her repeated votes for funding the war, her vote for Kyle-Liebermann which declared the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization and practically declared war on Iran, etc.) and find her too much of a Democratic Leadership Council tool of big corporations. Can she overcome such a deficit and reach out to young voters and independents? Maybe, but it won't be easy.

I'll be charitable and give Hillary the benefit of the doubt: I don't think she really wants to be a G. W. Bush-type hawk in foreign policy and I know she doesn't want to restrict civil liberties at home. (She IS a convinced free trader, which will never sit well with me, but probably doesn't hurt her in New Hampshire which is a very upscale state.) I think she wants very much to be the first woman president--and to do good for everyone, but especially women and children, once in office. By all accounts, after all, she has been a good senator for the people of New York. But throughout most of her adult lifetime, the conventional wisdom has been, "women can't be president because they aren't tough enough to be Commander-in-Chief of the military." So, Hillary Rodham Clinton has set out to prove she is tough enough: As soon as she won her senate seat in '00, she actively sought to be put on the Armed Services Committee. She made friends with the Republican leaders on the ARC and she became a foreign policy wonk--so she could say that she had the Commander-in-Chief "street cred" when she ran for president.

Well, along comes 9/11 and the nation rallies behind G.W. B. as it seeks to strike back at al-Qaeda. Did she buy the phony case for invading Iraq? Well, if she did, even with national security briefings, she would hardly be the only one fooled. But it doesn't show great insight, either, because plenty of us in the nation and throughout the world knew that the case for invasion was weak--and if we saw through the illusion, why didn't she? I think she believed that she had to vote to authorize force because, no matter how weak the case, she was fooled into believing the war would be brief and popular--and she didn't want to run for president with a no vote on a popular war--getting hit with the "weak woman" label. And she has never admitted to her error because she doesn't want to get stuck with a John Kerry "flip-flopper" image. But even if I am right about this, it doesn't help her case with New Hampshire Democratic liberals--who will wonder if she will be an "iron maiden" in a crisis AS president so that she continues to show that women can be "tough enough." So, she has to count on NH independents, who are a little more hawkish--but who might question her independent spirit, her ability to be her own woman.

Clinton's job in NH is tough. She has the best machine there is and she is a professional. I do not count her out at all. She MAY be the real "comeback kid" of the Clinton household. And, unlike Iowa, New Hampshire is used to seeing women in high office--like fmr. Governor Jeanne Shaheen(D-NH) whose husband was part of the Clinton team and who is currently running for John Sununu(R-NH)'s senate seat. (Clinton should have Shaheen by her side in photo ops, not the aging Madeleine Albright who, along with a very grey Bill Clinton, keeps her campaign looking old, tired, and its theme of "back to the '90s" looking pathetic. Shaheen and Chelsea next to Clinton could help her cut back into Obama's corner on youth and younger women.) But the brief time between Iowa and NH (5 days) works against her.

2. John Edward's challenge: John Edwards really needed a win in Iowa. Even though he came in second the media are reluctant to give him coverage because they saw him come in 2nd in Iowa in '04 and then fall flat in NH and they think they have seen this movie before. So, they aren't concentrating on the fact that he was outspent about 6 to 1 by both Obama and Clinton and managed to squeak by Clinton for 2nd place. Further, Edwards' economic populism may not play as well in the more successful, upscale New Hampshire. But don't count out Edwards. If he can come in 2nd here and make Clinton take 3rd again, he at least has a clear shot at Obama--although neither Nevada nor South Carolina look like places friendlier to him than Obama and, if he doesn't have at least one first place finish before 05 Feb., it's all over.

The commercial in the previous post (below), if people have time to see it before Tuesday, could help. It's the same Edwards' economic populism, but less combative in tone and reaching out to independents and Republicans as Obama did in Iowa. And, with the dollar plummeting, the housing market plummeting, unemployment up in December, Wall Street panicked about possible recession, Edwards could subtly shift his economic message in a way that reminds New Hampshire's upscale citizens that their jobs and future aren't safe, either--and that Clintonism is not likely to be the answer.

Edwards could also emphasize other parts of his platform than his economic boilerpate: He's stronger than both Obama and Clinton on global warming and knows that nuclear is not the answer. The highly educated New Hampshire voters can judge between approaches to climate change--and he could remind them that, although Bill Clinton bragged in '92 that he had Al Gore on his team, he never let Gore work on environmental policy--and, thus, the '90s were wasted in getting a handle on the various dimensions of the ecological crisis. He is also the only one of the top 3 Dems to declare that he wants to work for a nuclear weapons-free world--instead of just trying to stop proliferation in nations we don't like! His anti-war message, while not that of Dennis Kucinich (who is unfairly being shut out of ABC's debate this weekend even though he polls better nationally than Biden, Dodd, and Richardson--all of whom had invitations before Biden and Dodd dropped out of the race!), is stronger than Clinton's and Obama's --and NH Dems want the Iraq war OVER, Gitmo closed, torture ended--YESTERDAY. And many NH independents feel the same way.

And none of these positions are new for Edwards (except the full pullout from Iraq in his first year), they just usually take a backseat to his economic populist message. So, if I had Elizabeth Edwards on speed dial (and I would call her before Joe Trippi, the campaign manager), I would urge putting THIS PART of the Edwards' message front and center in New Hampshire.

He is far enough behind in the polls, here (13%, although not post-Iowa), that a strong second place would be almost as good as a win--though it has to be a much closer 2nd place, after Iowa did not give him the win he expected. The clock is against him, but if he beats Hillary again, then he can make people compare and contrast him directly to Obama. An uphill battle, but not impossible. But, if Edwards gets 3rd place, here, then I think he is finished. (If he had won Iowa, he could have survived a close 3rd in NH, but I don't think so, now.0

3. Barack Obama's challenge: Barack Obama now has the pressure of the frontrunner--even though Clinton is still in the lead nationally and Obama has only won Iowa. On the one hand, he has the wind at his back and better conditions here than in Iowa.

Obama polls best among the highly educated, the young, independents, and liberals--all of which are in greater supply in New Hampshire than in Iowa. And the country wants bigger change than represented by Clinton. And, even though Edwards' platform is proposing bigger changes than Obama's-by every OBJECTIVE measure--Obama himself is fresh and new. He doesn't play the race card much(and Clinton plays the gender card all the time), but he doesn't have to: Just by being the son of a Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother, raised in Hawaii, Indonesia, and Chicago, Obama presents a fresh new face to U.S. politics. With the GOP still shouting "be afraid of outsiders, be VERY afraid, " Obama appeals to the side of Americans that is tired of that and wants to be the kind of America where one doesn't have to be a rich, white man to be president. (And, let's face it: No matter how progressive John Edwards' policies are--or even Dennis Kucinich's policies--neither can hide the fact that they are white and male, just like every other president this nation has known.)

Liberals, especially, want to live in an America that can have a Barack Obama as president--I know, I'm one of them. Obama and I are nearly the same age (I'm a few months younger) and I didn't grow up in Hawaii, Indonesia, or Chicago--but in Virginia and central/northern Florida. I remember "whites only" signs on facilities when I was small--though the struggle to end segregation was in full swing. I remember politicians being rewarded--not punished--when they made racist remarks. I remember (I was 6) the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. My parents were bit players in the civil rights revolution and I get my progressive values from them. So, even though I have endorsed Edwards for his platform, I broke down and wept Thursday night, seeing Iowa Democrats and independents vote for Barack Obama.

And the young gravitate toward Obama because his story is more like theirs. I came home from school bragging to my parents about having Black or Latino or Filipino (this was Florida!) teachers and friends. Heck, during the disco era, I even dated Black, Latino, and Filipino girls. But MY kids never mention the race/ethnicity of their teachers or friends. It doesn't come up in conversation. Most of my kids' friends have parents who have been divorced (like Obama's) and many are from mixed races and/or mixed religious backgrounds (again, like Obama's). Whereas my parents and my sibs and I stood out in the South for being willing to break down old barriers, my kids don't remember those barriers--except when I tell them about the "old days." The young gravitate toward Obama because, to them, he doesn't seem strange or alien to American identity (as Fox Noise and the Right keep trying to paint him: "secret Muslim," not like us, ooo, scary!), but like people they know--or like them. So, if Obama can keep mobilizing the youth not just to show up and rally, but to VOTE, then he will win not only New Hampshire, but the nomination and the presidency--even if his actual policies are more centrist than John Edwards (and, on healthcare, not even as progressive and Clinton). Because he EMBODIES the message of change that he articulates and that this nation is radically hungry to embrace. (Even conservatives like Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan feel it, so imagine how powerful it is to those of us who don't drag our knuckles on the ground or breathe through our mouths! )

And then there's Obama's oratory. It's in a different key from the great African-American civil rights preachers, but it's clearly in the same tradition and with great power. Obama is only a fair debater: Edwards is better. He is better at one-on-one dialogue, but both Edwards and Clinton are excellent in that format. He is NOT good at the sound bite, where Hillary excels. But give him time to speak, and he gives some of the greatest political oratory in a generation or more. It would move people at any time and place, but after eight LOONG YEARS of a president who can barely complete a sentence, it blows you away. A president must be more than a good speaker, but she or he must be AT LEAST a good communicator. It is often a president's job to comfort or rally a nation. She or he must be able to use what Teddy Roosevelt called "the bully pulpit" of the presidency to inspire, to rebuke, to brace up, to comfort. This nation has missed that for a long time--so long that when Barack preaches his politics of hope, he scratches itches many of us didn't even know we had.

So, with all that, it is not surprising that I think Obama will win on Tuesday while Edwards and Clinton battle for 2nd place again. BUT, Obama also HAS to win. Losing here will make the Clinton claim that Iowa was a fluke seem true. The stakes are high for all three. I hope they have plenty of Tums, handy for the next few days!