I think maybe the stress is starting to get to Senator Hillary Clinton. Or is it?
First we saw an angry Hillary in the debate on Saturday night, and now we have an "emotional" Hillary tearing up yesterday. At a campaign stop in a coffee shop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Hillary was asked what sounded like a "softball" question: "As a woman, I know it's hard to get out of the house and get ready," said a woman attending the event. "Who does your hair?" Clinton's response, during which she seems to fight back tears, was shown ad nauseam on cable and network news last night. Have a look for yourself:
Most of the media portrayed it as a "genuine" moment in which the stress and fatigue of the campaign trail finally got the better of the former First Lady. Others in the press were more skeptical of the authenticity of the emotion, instead believing it was calculated and contrived as a means of humanizing and/or garnering sympathy for Clinton. (As you may recall from a previous blog entry here, this certainly wouldn't be the first time that Hillary has been questioned about her genuineness). As for yesterday's display, I'll let you be the judge.
Showing posts with label New Hampshire Primary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Hampshire Primary. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Is the Former First Lady Feeling the Heat?
I mentioned here Friday that Hillary Clinton had to expect Barack Obama to have a post-Iowa "bump", and according to a poll released today, he's got the bump, and it's very significant. In the latest Rasmussen Poll conducted after the Iowa Caucus, Obama has surged to a 12-point lead over Clinton -- 39% to 27% among likely Democratic Primary voters. In Rasmussen's last poll before Iowa, Clinton had a 3% lead over Obama, evidence of a 15-point swing in the Illinois Senator's favor. That's quite a bump, and it's quite worrisome for Hillary and her campaign.
Indeed, it would seem that Senator Clinton's own internal polling yesterday must have reflected a similar trend, because she showed an uncharacteristic flash of anger and frustration in last night's ABC debate. In a discussion about the candidates' differing health care plans, John Edwards, after first referring to Hillary as "the forces of status quo", then went on to question what he saw as Clinton's newfound claim to be the person who can best bring about "change", and her related "attacks" on her opponents as being less capable at doing so than she. As Senator Edwards rather bluntly put it, obviously aware of Obama's post-Iowa surge in the polls: "...I didn't hear these kind of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. Now that she's not, we hear them." Clinton didn't seem to take too kindly to this. Have a look for yourself:
Indeed, even in just the few days since Iowa, Clinton has been talking more about her ability to be an agent of change, a marked departure from her previous tendency to tout her experience and qualifications as making her the most "ready" to be president. This would seem to be an effort to tap into what evidently attracted so many Iowa voters to Obama -- the fact that he has not spent much time in Washington relative to others running for the White House, and therefore, that he potentially brings a fresh perspective. In the process of changing her message though, she has begun to "go negative" against Obama, and it was this new tactic to which Edwards was referring when he apparently got under Hillary's skin. It was a telling moment for a candidate who, heretofore, has been remarkably disciplined, perpetually "on message", and who has never seemed to allow herself to be rattled. Her reaction, I think, not only reflected the stress she is feeling, it also was indicative of the fact that Edwards had managed to effectively "zing" her. Unfortunately for Hillary, this is likely the clip that most will see from the debate rather than any of her "better" moments from last night.
So yes, I would say that the former First Lady is feeling the heat. Should she lose New Hampshire by anything close to the margins suggested by these polls, though, Hillary will have her feet held to the fire more than ever before in her political career. It will be interesting to watch how she and her campaign will respond if faced with the very real possibility of losing the nomination to Obama. Stay tuned!
Indeed, it would seem that Senator Clinton's own internal polling yesterday must have reflected a similar trend, because she showed an uncharacteristic flash of anger and frustration in last night's ABC debate. In a discussion about the candidates' differing health care plans, John Edwards, after first referring to Hillary as "the forces of status quo", then went on to question what he saw as Clinton's newfound claim to be the person who can best bring about "change", and her related "attacks" on her opponents as being less capable at doing so than she. As Senator Edwards rather bluntly put it, obviously aware of Obama's post-Iowa surge in the polls: "...I didn't hear these kind of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. Now that she's not, we hear them." Clinton didn't seem to take too kindly to this. Have a look for yourself:
Indeed, even in just the few days since Iowa, Clinton has been talking more about her ability to be an agent of change, a marked departure from her previous tendency to tout her experience and qualifications as making her the most "ready" to be president. This would seem to be an effort to tap into what evidently attracted so many Iowa voters to Obama -- the fact that he has not spent much time in Washington relative to others running for the White House, and therefore, that he potentially brings a fresh perspective. In the process of changing her message though, she has begun to "go negative" against Obama, and it was this new tactic to which Edwards was referring when he apparently got under Hillary's skin. It was a telling moment for a candidate who, heretofore, has been remarkably disciplined, perpetually "on message", and who has never seemed to allow herself to be rattled. Her reaction, I think, not only reflected the stress she is feeling, it also was indicative of the fact that Edwards had managed to effectively "zing" her. Unfortunately for Hillary, this is likely the clip that most will see from the debate rather than any of her "better" moments from last night.
So yes, I would say that the former First Lady is feeling the heat. Should she lose New Hampshire by anything close to the margins suggested by these polls, though, Hillary will have her feet held to the fire more than ever before in her political career. It will be interesting to watch how she and her campaign will respond if faced with the very real possibility of losing the nomination to Obama. Stay tuned!
Friday, January 4, 2008
About Last Night...
Last night in the Iowa Caucuses, the 2008 Presidential Race was altered significantly for both Republicans and Democrats. In case you didn't already know, on the Republican side, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee won with 34% of the vote. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney finished second with 25%, followed by former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and Senator John McCain with 13% each. As for the Democrats, Illinois Senator Barack Obama won with 38% of the vote, followed by former North Carolina Senator John Edwards at 30%, and New York Senator Hillary Clinton with 29%. For both parties now, the road to the nomination has become far more interesting than anticipated.
Looking first at the Republicans, Mike Huckabee not only won the Caucus, he gave himself and his campaign some much needed legitimacy, and in all likelihood effectively ended Mitt Romney's quest for the White House. Romney had put many of his "eggs" in the Iowa basket. He had spent more money and more time there than any other GOP candidate, and until about a month ago, was the odds-on favorite to win there. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, started his campaign as a little-known, poorly-funded "fringe" candidate -- someone who sought to appeal to the evangelical, "Religious Right" of the Republican Party. Until late November, Huckabee was simply the folksy, witty, former Baptist Minister who had managed to have the best laugh lines in the circus-like debates of the last six months. (I underestimated him, myself. In the first of my "series" -- though it never really became a series! -- of blog entries about the candidates for the party nominations, I examined Hillary Clinton. I also specifically mentioned those candidates on whom I would not be wasting your time or mine, and Huckabee was one of them). After Thanksgiving, however, (and in my own defense, after my aforementioned blog entry!), Huckabee instead became the folksy, witty, former minister who was now leading many of the polls in Iowa. (Have a look at this graphical representation of the Iowa polling over the last year, courtesy of the fantastic Real Clear Politics website. Seeing it illustrated in that way only further underscores how remarkable a feat it was for Governor Huckabee). As often happens in politics, momentum begets media attention and media attention begets more momentum. By mid-December, Huckabee was reveling in national media interviews and newfound strength, and he posed a serious threat to Romney's chances to win in Iowa. The threat proved very real, and Huckabee defeated Romney soundly -- probably far beyond even the worst-case scenarios envisioned by Romney and his advisers. The race for the Republican nomination is now completely turned on its head.
As for the Democrats, last night was -- regardless of how her campaign tried to spin it both before and after the Caucus -- a terrible night for Hillary Clinton. Hillary was viewed by many to be the inevitable Democratic Nominee, and Iowa was thought to be just the first step in her victorious path to the nomination. (Again, if you look back at my blog entry on Hillary from a few months ago, you'll see the many, many advantages she had, and the resulting unlikelihood of her losing Iowa). Like Romney, however, she not only lost, but she lost badly. In fact, she didn't even finish in second place, but in third. The Clinton Campaign seemed to at least partially see this coming given their strenuous efforts in the last week to downplay both the importance of the Iowa Caucus and the expectations for her performance in it. Despite these efforts, though, there is simply no denying that last night's results have created a significant chink in Senator Clinton's political armor. Unlike Romney, however, Senator Clinton has good reason for optimism. She has led in the polls in New Hampshire (the site of the next key contest on Tuesday) from the very beginning, and should she manage to emerge victorious there, she and her campaign would be back on very solid ground. For Barack Obama, the significance of his victory (and the size of his margin of victory) are invaluably important and beneficial. He has lingered for months as the biggest threat to Hillary Clinton's winning the nomination, but with a decisive win in Iowa, he has proved that there is more to him and to his campaign than many realized. The odd machinations that make up the Iowa Caucus process were tailor-made for Clinton's campaign. She had the money, she had the field organization, and she had the experienced advisors. Obama wasn't hurting for campaign money, but he was relying on advisors with less experience, an untested field workers, and on the voter turnout of young and politically inexperienced Iowans. According to a closer look at last night's numbers, however, they came through for him, as Obama not only won the youth vote, he also won the majority of votes among women. (57% of voters under the age of 30 chose Obama, as did 40% of first-time caucus voters. Additionally, 35% of the women who voted last night chose Obama, compared to 30% for Hillary). This victory in the female vote is particularly worrisome for the Clinton Campaign, as support from women has long been viewed as a core source of strength for Senator Clinton. So while Clinton is not politically "dead", she is certainly bloodied, and in politics, it doesn't take long for the sharks to appear.
So what now? Well, for both parties, all eyes turn to New Hampshire where next Tuesday, that state holds its very important primary. In the Republican race, Romney's campaign will be truly over if he fails to win there. Unfortunately for Romney -- and with kudos to the McCain Campaign -- Senator McCain now leads in the polls. Looking at McCain's strategy over the last month in light of last night's results and with hindsight being 20/20, it's clear that he and his advisers made a bold and shrewd calculation. They saw Huckabee's rise in Iowa, felt it had legs and credibility (when many others didn't), and realized that if he were to defeat Romney in the caucus, the former Massachusetts Governor would be badly limping into New Hampshire. Banking on this outcome, McCain has spent nearly all of his time, money and energy in New Hampshire in the last month, while Romney tried to shore up his weakening support in Iowa. The strategy worked, McCain now leads in the polls, and Romney now comes into New Hampshire not merely limping, but in a wheelchair and on life-support. It was only a few months ago that the McCain Campaign was in disarray, desperately low in campaign funds, and polling very poorly. Should Senator McCain win New Hampshire, he can justifiably label himself "the Comeback Kid" (as Bill Clinton famously did in 1992). A McCain victory would likely catapult the Arizona Senator to front-runner status in the race for the GOP Nomination, setting up a showdown with Huckabee in the South Carolina Primary in late January, and with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in the Florida Primary three days later. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee will undoubtedly enjoy a nice "bump" in the polls (and presumably in media attention and campaign contributions) following his Iowa triumph. It's unlikely, though, that his momentum will be sufficient for a victory in New Hampshire -- a state in which he has spent almost no time or money and whose relatively liberal electorate would not tend to be enamored with his conservative social positions. On the other hand, the "bump" will definitely bode well for "Huck" in the important South Carolina contest in which he can again count on a solid number of evangelical, socially conservative Republicans to turn out and vote for him. Perhaps most importantly, Huckabee and his efforts now have instant legitimacy and credibility after such a substantial win in Iowa. No longer a "fringe" candidate, Huckabee now will (deservedly) receive a great deal more media coverage and as mentioned previously, the momentum that accompanies it. If McCain wins in New Hampshire, Huckabee in South Carolina and Rudy in Florida, the race for the Republican Nomination will be wide open, and it will be a very exciting contest heading into "Super Tuesday" on February 5th when more than twenty states will hold their nominating contests.
On the Democratic side, New Hampshire has become an extremely high-stakes contest for Senators Clinton and Obama. Having never trailed in the Granite State's polls, Hillary may find herself in that unfamiliar position soon as she now has to expect and prepare for Obama to have his own "bump" from Iowa. Unlike the relatively crowded GOP field however, it's really a two-person race for the Democrats as John Edwards' distant second-place finish in Iowa likely spells the end of his campaign. Had Hillary bested Obama last night (or even finished a very close second), it's likely that Obama's campaign would be in serious trouble today, and that Hillary would be on a cakewalk to the nomination. That certainly isn't the case, however. Obama, who has not spent nearly the time or money in New Hampshire as Clinton has, will now gain in the same New Hampshire polls he has never led, and make it a real competition on Tuesday. The Iowa victory will also help Senator Obama with an issue that people are often reluctant to face head-on: his race. His race, however, (like Clinton's gender), is an unavoidable issue, and an issue that likely caused many New Hampshire voters (and voters nationwide, for that matter) to question his ultimate electability. In many ways, though, it's now as if the voters in the overwhelmingly White state of Iowa have given the people in subsequent primary and caucus states a reason to believe that an African-American could possibly win the presidency, and the "permission" to go ahead and vote for Obama. This could easily translate into new support for the Illinois Senator from undecided voters, independent voters, and supporters of other Democratic candidates who will not be continuing in the race for the nomination. If Obama manages to upset Clinton in New Hampshire, Hillary will be in serious trouble, as Obama's momentum would be almost insurmountable, and the resulting electoral snowball effect would likely propel him to the Democratic Nomination. Conversely, should Hillary hang on in New Hampshire, while it wouldn't guarantee her the nomination, she'd be very hard to beat given the amount of money and experience her campaign possesses. All the money and experience in the world, however, cannot ultimately trump the will of the people, and if New Hampshire spurns her as Iowa did, Hillary may be done.
Either way, we are looking at an extremely intense weekend of campaigning, as Mitt Romney and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Hillary Clinton, fight for their political lives in New Hampshire. Both the Republicans and the Democrats will hold debates there this weekend, and each promises to be the political equivalent of "must-see-TV", with the stakes as high as they've been at any point in the campaign thus far. Beyond that, we are most likely looking at an intense month or two of campaigning, and perhaps the first truly contested races for the nomination in the Republican and Democratic Parties since 1980 and 1992 respectively. For a political junkie like me, it doesn't get much better than this!
EDITORIAL NOTE: I again must apologize for the delay between blog entries. I am still working on a fairly lengthy and intensive entry that I hope to complete soon, but in the meantime, I couldn't resist weighing in on the Iowa Caucus. Thanks for reading!
Looking first at the Republicans, Mike Huckabee not only won the Caucus, he gave himself and his campaign some much needed legitimacy, and in all likelihood effectively ended Mitt Romney's quest for the White House. Romney had put many of his "eggs" in the Iowa basket. He had spent more money and more time there than any other GOP candidate, and until about a month ago, was the odds-on favorite to win there. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, started his campaign as a little-known, poorly-funded "fringe" candidate -- someone who sought to appeal to the evangelical, "Religious Right" of the Republican Party. Until late November, Huckabee was simply the folksy, witty, former Baptist Minister who had managed to have the best laugh lines in the circus-like debates of the last six months. (I underestimated him, myself. In the first of my "series" -- though it never really became a series! -- of blog entries about the candidates for the party nominations, I examined Hillary Clinton. I also specifically mentioned those candidates on whom I would not be wasting your time or mine, and Huckabee was one of them). After Thanksgiving, however, (and in my own defense, after my aforementioned blog entry!), Huckabee instead became the folksy, witty, former minister who was now leading many of the polls in Iowa. (Have a look at this graphical representation of the Iowa polling over the last year, courtesy of the fantastic Real Clear Politics website. Seeing it illustrated in that way only further underscores how remarkable a feat it was for Governor Huckabee). As often happens in politics, momentum begets media attention and media attention begets more momentum. By mid-December, Huckabee was reveling in national media interviews and newfound strength, and he posed a serious threat to Romney's chances to win in Iowa. The threat proved very real, and Huckabee defeated Romney soundly -- probably far beyond even the worst-case scenarios envisioned by Romney and his advisers. The race for the Republican nomination is now completely turned on its head.
As for the Democrats, last night was -- regardless of how her campaign tried to spin it both before and after the Caucus -- a terrible night for Hillary Clinton. Hillary was viewed by many to be the inevitable Democratic Nominee, and Iowa was thought to be just the first step in her victorious path to the nomination. (Again, if you look back at my blog entry on Hillary from a few months ago, you'll see the many, many advantages she had, and the resulting unlikelihood of her losing Iowa). Like Romney, however, she not only lost, but she lost badly. In fact, she didn't even finish in second place, but in third. The Clinton Campaign seemed to at least partially see this coming given their strenuous efforts in the last week to downplay both the importance of the Iowa Caucus and the expectations for her performance in it. Despite these efforts, though, there is simply no denying that last night's results have created a significant chink in Senator Clinton's political armor. Unlike Romney, however, Senator Clinton has good reason for optimism. She has led in the polls in New Hampshire (the site of the next key contest on Tuesday) from the very beginning, and should she manage to emerge victorious there, she and her campaign would be back on very solid ground. For Barack Obama, the significance of his victory (and the size of his margin of victory) are invaluably important and beneficial. He has lingered for months as the biggest threat to Hillary Clinton's winning the nomination, but with a decisive win in Iowa, he has proved that there is more to him and to his campaign than many realized. The odd machinations that make up the Iowa Caucus process were tailor-made for Clinton's campaign. She had the money, she had the field organization, and she had the experienced advisors. Obama wasn't hurting for campaign money, but he was relying on advisors with less experience, an untested field workers, and on the voter turnout of young and politically inexperienced Iowans. According to a closer look at last night's numbers, however, they came through for him, as Obama not only won the youth vote, he also won the majority of votes among women. (57% of voters under the age of 30 chose Obama, as did 40% of first-time caucus voters. Additionally, 35% of the women who voted last night chose Obama, compared to 30% for Hillary). This victory in the female vote is particularly worrisome for the Clinton Campaign, as support from women has long been viewed as a core source of strength for Senator Clinton. So while Clinton is not politically "dead", she is certainly bloodied, and in politics, it doesn't take long for the sharks to appear.
So what now? Well, for both parties, all eyes turn to New Hampshire where next Tuesday, that state holds its very important primary. In the Republican race, Romney's campaign will be truly over if he fails to win there. Unfortunately for Romney -- and with kudos to the McCain Campaign -- Senator McCain now leads in the polls. Looking at McCain's strategy over the last month in light of last night's results and with hindsight being 20/20, it's clear that he and his advisers made a bold and shrewd calculation. They saw Huckabee's rise in Iowa, felt it had legs and credibility (when many others didn't), and realized that if he were to defeat Romney in the caucus, the former Massachusetts Governor would be badly limping into New Hampshire. Banking on this outcome, McCain has spent nearly all of his time, money and energy in New Hampshire in the last month, while Romney tried to shore up his weakening support in Iowa. The strategy worked, McCain now leads in the polls, and Romney now comes into New Hampshire not merely limping, but in a wheelchair and on life-support. It was only a few months ago that the McCain Campaign was in disarray, desperately low in campaign funds, and polling very poorly. Should Senator McCain win New Hampshire, he can justifiably label himself "the Comeback Kid" (as Bill Clinton famously did in 1992). A McCain victory would likely catapult the Arizona Senator to front-runner status in the race for the GOP Nomination, setting up a showdown with Huckabee in the South Carolina Primary in late January, and with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in the Florida Primary three days later. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee will undoubtedly enjoy a nice "bump" in the polls (and presumably in media attention and campaign contributions) following his Iowa triumph. It's unlikely, though, that his momentum will be sufficient for a victory in New Hampshire -- a state in which he has spent almost no time or money and whose relatively liberal electorate would not tend to be enamored with his conservative social positions. On the other hand, the "bump" will definitely bode well for "Huck" in the important South Carolina contest in which he can again count on a solid number of evangelical, socially conservative Republicans to turn out and vote for him. Perhaps most importantly, Huckabee and his efforts now have instant legitimacy and credibility after such a substantial win in Iowa. No longer a "fringe" candidate, Huckabee now will (deservedly) receive a great deal more media coverage and as mentioned previously, the momentum that accompanies it. If McCain wins in New Hampshire, Huckabee in South Carolina and Rudy in Florida, the race for the Republican Nomination will be wide open, and it will be a very exciting contest heading into "Super Tuesday" on February 5th when more than twenty states will hold their nominating contests.
On the Democratic side, New Hampshire has become an extremely high-stakes contest for Senators Clinton and Obama. Having never trailed in the Granite State's polls, Hillary may find herself in that unfamiliar position soon as she now has to expect and prepare for Obama to have his own "bump" from Iowa. Unlike the relatively crowded GOP field however, it's really a two-person race for the Democrats as John Edwards' distant second-place finish in Iowa likely spells the end of his campaign. Had Hillary bested Obama last night (or even finished a very close second), it's likely that Obama's campaign would be in serious trouble today, and that Hillary would be on a cakewalk to the nomination. That certainly isn't the case, however. Obama, who has not spent nearly the time or money in New Hampshire as Clinton has, will now gain in the same New Hampshire polls he has never led, and make it a real competition on Tuesday. The Iowa victory will also help Senator Obama with an issue that people are often reluctant to face head-on: his race. His race, however, (like Clinton's gender), is an unavoidable issue, and an issue that likely caused many New Hampshire voters (and voters nationwide, for that matter) to question his ultimate electability. In many ways, though, it's now as if the voters in the overwhelmingly White state of Iowa have given the people in subsequent primary and caucus states a reason to believe that an African-American could possibly win the presidency, and the "permission" to go ahead and vote for Obama. This could easily translate into new support for the Illinois Senator from undecided voters, independent voters, and supporters of other Democratic candidates who will not be continuing in the race for the nomination. If Obama manages to upset Clinton in New Hampshire, Hillary will be in serious trouble, as Obama's momentum would be almost insurmountable, and the resulting electoral snowball effect would likely propel him to the Democratic Nomination. Conversely, should Hillary hang on in New Hampshire, while it wouldn't guarantee her the nomination, she'd be very hard to beat given the amount of money and experience her campaign possesses. All the money and experience in the world, however, cannot ultimately trump the will of the people, and if New Hampshire spurns her as Iowa did, Hillary may be done.
Either way, we are looking at an extremely intense weekend of campaigning, as Mitt Romney and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Hillary Clinton, fight for their political lives in New Hampshire. Both the Republicans and the Democrats will hold debates there this weekend, and each promises to be the political equivalent of "must-see-TV", with the stakes as high as they've been at any point in the campaign thus far. Beyond that, we are most likely looking at an intense month or two of campaigning, and perhaps the first truly contested races for the nomination in the Republican and Democratic Parties since 1980 and 1992 respectively. For a political junkie like me, it doesn't get much better than this!
EDITORIAL NOTE: I again must apologize for the delay between blog entries. I am still working on a fairly lengthy and intensive entry that I hope to complete soon, but in the meantime, I couldn't resist weighing in on the Iowa Caucus. Thanks for reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)