Last week’s victory by Hillary Clinton, in the Iowa caucus - however slim -- was the first salvo in the battle for the souls of Democrats, as they attempt tp traversed the path that led them to the history making election in 2008. .And, in that effort they elected a Black American to the executive office, a first for the country.
Now there is a new race dominated by an electorate that wants change, needs change, but has not adopted who the new standard bearer will be -- shall it be Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont, whose radical call for systemic change, is the new path, or is it the pragmatic realism of Clinton.
Voters, many of whom do not know much about President Clinton, only know of Hillary what they have gleaned from the latest dish from the latent email scandals that emanated from her private server. Many of them have aligned themselves Messiah-like behind Sanders, who offers a new version of government. Yet for many seasoned observers, his devout following lacks a core platform that can deliver both the bacon, as well as the pig.
This new direction seems to be born of the contemporary frustration with income inequality, whose shadows are those of Wall Street chieftains,and their derivatives, and whose acolytes, notably Elizabeth Warren have voices that seem lost on the ears of the establishment,and those that support them. So, in these times, their mantra seems to be, “Throw the bums out.”
For some taking all of the bums out of the game is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, an endeavor destined to take us down, to use the vernacular, faster than another silent storm. So, the question of survival for the Democrats is essential to their existence.
That said, the opposition in Iowa, and the winner, Ted Cruz, ran a good show, a traditional “boots on the ground” campaign, clearly well designed, with a strong commitment to “retail politics,” that had him outperforming than the polls predicted, and that beat back the bluff and bluster of Donald Trump, whose self-effacing speech after his poor showing seems to have given him pause.
Cruz also reintroduces the role of Evangelical Christianity into the mix, something not seen since the 1980s where everyone seemed to spout a Bible verse, or talk about personal conversion, as a way to get points in the ballot box.
In his victory speech Cruz gave several clues to his campaign, and that will be seen along the path to a possible nomination:references to Washington lobbyists, and a battle charge that he will not be defined by the media -- in this case, not simply polls, but that age old nemesis, the “liberal media,” a hangover from the Richard Nixon years, but also used by the George W. Bush administration.
A new twist, not simply the “nattering nabobs” that Nixon’s vice-president Spiro Agnew railed against, but those that forgot that the nation is governed by the Constitution, and as Cruz noted “we the people,” a not too subtle jab at President Obama’s efforts to use executive control after being hamstrung by the Republican majority on every legislative effort he has ever attempted, or endorsed.
In true reform tradition, the call is out to return to the founding fundamentals the nation was built on, ergo the references to the constitution But reaching beyond the text Cruz’s call to “take back the country” has the definite racial coding of old-school politics ago --- take the country back not only from the liberals, but the black man that is president.
To mask the code, Cruz cleverly encircles it with the words, “all men are created equal,” to give political cover to the none too subtle race bait.
Clinton on the other hand is not giving a direct response to these statements, but rather running on her strong and solid record as secretary of state, senator, and more traditional, but equally active policy affecting roles as first lady of both the country, and Arkansas. This past underscored her commitment to education, children's welfare and working families. Shrewdly, she only gives direct responses to the more egregious statements of her opposition, leaving her energy for the fight.
In the quest for the nomination, she wisely stressing party unity, and gives a subtle jab to her opponent, Bernie Sanders, who is running as an independent, for the Democratic nomination. But, in recognition of, and to court his base, she rolls out a laundry list of areas that she has strengthened, in the past: affordable college education, “making education work for all,” decreasing student debt,and the goal of universal health care. and finally, “going to the White House to push forward on issues that unite us.” The latter is to show those that voted for Obama, that his legacy will be continued, and as she stressed last week, against the Republican moves “that would pull us apart.”
For Thursday’s debate in New Hampshire, Clinton has to drive her points home, but in a manner suggestive of a legacy, and a lifetime of achievement, and not as a cult figure, like Sanders, and not shrill like Howard Dean whose campaign weary voice made him seem, to his critics, hoary and wildeyed.
Traditionally, there is no carryover from Iowa to New Hampshire, and some are saying that a Cruz victory is not a certainty in the Granite State, and some go further, that he should go right to South Carolina where his evangelical message will be more favored than the rock ribbed mainline protestantism of New England.
Another scenario is that divisions between other candidates, Messrs. Christie, Rubio and Kasich, to give a split vote and garner Cruz a plurality, says Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for George W. Bush.
Hillary and team have acknowledged that they don’t expect a victory in New Hampshire, but a solid second, but even Sanders admits that the state helped propel Bill Clinton to a victory, after a tarnished rep, and gave his wife an unexpected nudge in 2008, when she admitted to the rigors of presidential campaign. So, it might not be a done deal for the lady in the pantsuit - say some; despite a recent NBC/WSJ/Marist poll that has her getting 38 percent of the vote, and Sanders with a double-digit lead of 58 percent.
Sanders meanwhile, in his own geographical backyard says that not only is she out of step --- a generational appeal, but that she voted for the war in Iraq, a bugaboo for war weary voters of a certain age. But, what Clinton has not said is that she and others based on what can be charitably called erroneous information from President Bush, but lies, about weapons of mass destructions that even the esteemed Colin Powell believed.
Another hurdle for Clinton is that she took money from Wall Street, and is therefore in their debt --- a specious position that does not reveal that the business community has directly and even indirectly supported Democrats, as well as Republican candidates.. But, the point has been made, and is enshrined in the Sanders briefing books.
How New Hampshire will work for both sides of the political aisle may be less of a nail biter than Iowa, for the Democrats, but for the Republicans the big tent may get just a little smaller than thought. Stay tuned.
