Hillary's Firewall
So what if Hillary Clinton loses in Iowa?
A new conventional wisdom is taking hold that Barack Obama beats her there, he could run away with the nomination.
It’s a line of thinking the Clinton campaign should encourage.
The reason is simple: If the Clinton Machine has a firewall anywhere, it’s in New Hampshire, where the combination of her husband’s lingering sentimental appeal and an unprecedentedly relentless and well-organized pursuit of the Democratic establishment gives her a considerable leg-up on the competition.
If she does falter in Iowa, the media will immediately portray New Hampshire, which votes five days later, as a do-or-die test for the former First Lady. Her campaign will be described with words like “teetering” and “imperiled.” She will be compared, baselessly but endlessly, to Howard Dean.
What a perfect set-up for a dramatic, bounce-back victory—the kind that would allow her to lay claim to the same “Comeback Kid” mantle her husband seized 16 years ago.
New Hampshire is the ideal place for Mrs. Clinton to make a stand, and her campaign has known it from Day One. Geographically compact and home to a Democratic primary universe of perhaps 200,000, it is a state where personal connections are critical to any campaign. The Clinton Machine has masterfully exploited its star power and perceived inevitability to dazzle and overwhelm the locals.
Start with the non-hostile takeover of the state’s Democratic organization that Mrs. Clinton engineered as soon as she entered the race, signing on its key staffers for top roles in her Granite State operation. She also claimed the endorsement of Kathleen Sullivan, who stepped down earlier this year after chairing the state party for eight years. This means that Mrs. Clinton’s organization is run by the same people who led the state party to unparalleled heights this decade – historic victories in gubernatorial, congressional, state legislative and even county races.
What’s more, bringing in Mrs. Sullivan, a household name to party activists across the state, and other prominent insider figures only reinforced the sense of inevitability that the Clinton Machine desperately wants to telegraph to other party leaders and to its rank-and-file. And that perceived inevitability, in turn, fueled Mrs. Clinton’s main New Hampshire objective for 2007: to gobble up as many endorsements—from anyone with any kind of a title – as humanly possible.
She has had remarkable success in doing so—and this is where the star power of the Clinton machine comes in. Targeted endorsers are identified by Mrs. Clinton’s state political operation—people who have no trouble identifying who’s who in New Hampshire Democratic politics—and are given the red carpet treatment: A personal meeting with Mrs. Clinton (or maybe even Bill), regular progress reports from higher-ups in the campaign, V.I.P. treatment at Clinton events, complimentary invitations to top-dollar fund-raising galas (and to the even more exclusive fundraisers-within-fundraisers), and even personal phone calls from the biggest-name national figures to endorse Mrs. Clinton—like Wesley Clark and Madeleine Albright.
Then there’s the Bill Factor. The Comeback Kid’s reputation among New Hampshire Democrats has only grown since he won just over 25 percent in the 1992 primary. He carried the state twice in general elections and returned several times as President, always making sure to pay tribute to the people who could have kicked him when he was down but didn’t. New Hampshire Democrats relish their pivotal role in the story of Mr. Clinton’s rise—and plenty of them would like to author Chapter Two in 2008.
Equally noteworthy is that the Obama campaign’s relative disengagement from the game the Clintons are playing in New Hampshire.
Democrats in the state report that Mr. Obama actually has a larger staff than Mrs. Clinton and has more volunteers knocking on doors on any given weekend. But Mr. Obama’s operation is not geared toward massaging the egos of local political leaders. His campaign is not primarily driven by veterans of state politics, and he hasn’t courted the average state senator with anything approaching Mrs. Clinton’s intensity. In this sense, his New Hampshire organization calls to mind Howard Dean’s ill-fated “Perfect Storm” of 2004, when thousands of idealistic volunteers flooded the state on behalf of their candidate.
In a sense, we’ve been down this road before. In 1988, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush was humiliated in Iowa, and immediately lost the New Hampshire lead he’d held from the start of the campaign. But he was rescued when the state G.O.P.’s establishment, which he’d spent the previous eight years courting, flexed its muscle in the closing days of the campaign.
That ’88 win was enough to restore Mr. Bush’s halo of inevitability. Mrs. Clinton may end up looking to New Hampshire for the same thing a month from now.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 49.6
- 44.1
- Obama +5.5
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 54.9
- 36.1
- +18.8
- McCain
- 50.7
- 39.6
- +11.1
This contest reminds me of 1968: Obama's got RFK's youthful charisma and appeals to widespread disillusionment with the status quo, while Clinton, like Humphrey, is controversial and widely mistrusted, but has the local machines sewn up. (I hope for Obama's and America's sake that this analogy goes no further.)
Doesn't this analysis change now that Obama has gotten Shea-Porter's endorsement? With a popular member of the delegation in his camp, a lot of the groundwork Clinton used to lock up New Hampshire might start to unravel. More and more people will feel comfortable about supporting Obama, even if they currently support Hillary because she is the safer choice for them.
So, New Hampshire might not be the best firewall for Hillary after all. She might fare better in Nevada, where the polls still have her ahead. All other early states have Hillary and Obama running about even. If Hillary can stop him in Nevada, then the bloodbath of Feb. 5th will determine who wins this thing.
I've seen this argument recently...Nevada as the "Western firewall"...not sure I get it. Assuming (big assumption), that Obama wins Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, how could a Hillary win in Nevada be considered trump? Wouldn't the voters in CA and FL see the initial three wins as evidence that Obama is electable, regardless of how he does in Nevada, and change their vote accordingly? Or alternately, if they discount IA, NH and SC, why would they see NV as an important state to win? Under what set of assumptions about voter psychology is Nevada key?
Really, I don't see anyone casting Hillary in the light of Howard Dean. Should she fail to win Iowa, running a strong early campaign and then failing to win Iowa would be really all they have in common. Dean was an outsider; it doesn't get any more establishment than Clinton. Dean's campaign was the internet campaign, fueled by youth; Clinton is right now pulling AFL-CIO and Emily's List endorsements to help her in Iowa -- she's definitely not the candidate of youth. Dean was running as anti-war; Hillary is one of, if not the most hawkish of the Dems.
There is no comparison to be made there.
I hope that she will stumble...
Look at the numbers in this morning's NYT poll. 14% of democratic voters think Obama is electable as president and her number is in the mid sixties. There is absolutely no way Obama is going to be the democratic nominee with numbers like this and a concertinaed primary calendar. Personally when it gets down to it I think she's going to carry IA but even if she doesn't it isn't going to make a bit of difference. Democrats who have a lot more commonsense than journalists give them credit for, want the white house back and they know Clinton can win it while Obama can't.
This is certainly a plausible scenario, but I think that the public's squeamishness over Hillary is the difference-maker. There are plenty of people that support Hillary because they think she's ultimately going to win anyway, and there are plenty of others that haven't bothered to really look into any of the other candidates because they've bought into this "inevitability" and consider it a waste of their time -- notwithstanding that they may have some personal misgivings about her.
An Obama win in Iowa, though, fractures the facade of inevitability, and gives voters like those I've described "permission," for lack of a better word, to consider other options. Will less enthusiastic would-be Hillary voters continue to support her once it's apparent that she can be beaten and that Obama is a viable option? Tough call, but she's a known commodity, and I certainly don't see her picking up votes after an Obama win
The newest polling out of New Hampshire shows a three point race with Hillary narrowly leading. That was before Oprah hit Manchester; and before Shea-Porter joined Paul Hodes in giving Obama the support of both of the state's congresspeople. Hodes and Shea-Porter are the highest ranking Democratic officials in NH to endorse, meaning the central conceit of this article is flawed. If New Hampshire is the Team Clinton's idea of a firewall they are in deep trouble.
This is nonsense - South Carolina is Obama's firewall - HRC is going to lose the male vote, split the female vote and in the first primary state with a significant black population Obama will receive 85% of the black vote, putting HRC is third - KAPUT!
Way to drink the Clinton koolaide Steve.
When are the Clintonians going to realize that Hillary is not Bill?
Hillary knows she loses 3 of the first 4 (only may win Nevada) if she loses Iowa. Why do you think she's fighting so hard there.
Although my name is mentioned in this article, the Clinton campaign you are describing here is not the Clinton campaign that I am involved with in New Hampshire. We have been making a significant effort to reach out to every voter in the state, with a neighbor to neighbor program, shoe leather, telephones, and the like. The races that you mention that were won by NH Democrats over the last few years were not won through "massaging egos" - quite the opposite. I am not supporting Senator Clinton because of free tickets to high end fundraisers (I don't recall being offered any). I am supporting her because she will make the best president, has the most detailed policy positions on issues that matter to me like energy & the environment and health care, has always taken a principled stand on matters relating to choice, and has the intelligence and common sense to clean up the mess George W. Bush has created in Washington. If this was a campaign relying on egos, endorsements and an aura of inevitability, I would be spending my weekends skiing, instead of making pasta for volunteers and calling undecided voters from phonebanks!
Ottovbvs;
This morning NYT poll means very little(nationally).
Therefore, it's numbers mean even less (politically).
I cannot understand how in the world democrats believe that Hillary is the most electable. 50% of the country will not vote for her under any circumstances. Independents like her less than every republican candidate.
If you actually think she will fight her way to the white house by kicking GOP ass, you are delusional.
Moreover, it will tear this nation apart again.
WAKE UP DEMOCRATS!!!! IF YOU NOMINATE HILLARY YOU ONLY HAVE YOURSELVES TO BLAME......
I agree with ROB23 above. I think Hillary has seen her best days of polling and she's on the way down.
There is no firewall for Hillary after Iowa.
Bulletin:
HRC will not become president no matter what primaries she wins or loses. OHB will not become president depending on which primaries he wins or loses. JE will not become rational no matter what.
Hard to believe the Democrat Party can't offer more viable candidates...well they have one - Chris Dodd.
Looks like the Republicans will prevail in 2008.
HRC is so divisive that i, considering myself a democrat, would vote Republican just as a protest vote to the Democrats.
Don't forget the New Hampshire Mischief Vote! In New Hampshire voters can vote in any primary they want, so there's a long history of the state's leftists organizing and voting for awkward and improbable Republicans in the Republican primary. Tee hee, giggle giggle, ain't we funny. But it would be really funny if Republicans did the same thing this year and gave Obama a 20-point victory over Mrs. Clinton in this NH primary. Obama would appreciate us, at least.
As a native Texan male, I'm anxious to vote for Hillary Clinton and let me tell you why. Hillary, more than any other candidate, will take the fight to the Republicans. Obama can talk all he wants about how this election is not about red and blue America. Well I've got news for Mr. Obama--the Republicans are coming after the Democratic candidate with both barrels blazing regardless. Any Democrat can unite this country--but not until they reclaim the White House. And that's going to require a candidate who wont back down to the Republican attack machine. Hillary Clinton wont back down--she'll take the fight right to them. I'm tired of going oversees and being embarrassed for my country. Hillary's the toughest cat on the block: she'll beat the Republicans first and then she'll restore America's respect around the world. That's what I want to see in my Commander in Chief. You go Girl!
i just wanted to point out something that i think some people just havent realized yet.
that is that the whole super tuesday movement is for a reason.
i am very involved in politics here in california, and i can
promise you, that we voted for changing our vote to february because like other big states, we are sick and tired of little rural townships, having so much impact on what happens in the wider world...
iowa and other early states, do not represent opinions of of many other larger and more populous regines of america, its just a whole different mind set, and agenda.
states with larger, more vigorous economies, should have more dynamics on elections, and if our money is welcome enough to the economy, so should our desires be as well...
and here in california, we have no shortness of memory when it comes to the clintons, we remember real well how good the clinton days were. and we love them as people...
and come super tuesday, we will finally take back politics for the masses...
so i think you should rethink your firewall or no firewall theory... we are so mot following some little town in who knows where...
Kathy, are you blind or retarded? Hillary Clinton is proven to be corrupt and a proven liar. Are these the best traits one needs to be president?
As a German, I just can't see how Democrats consider Clinton the most electable candidate?
Consider her high negatives. Lots of Independents and Democrats dislike her, not to mention Republicans.
I don't see her winning a single Southern state (apart from perhaps Florida - not really part of the South with all those snowbirds). I think a Hillary campaign could simply not be a landslide. It'd come down to OH and FL. As in 2000 and 2004.
By comparison, I think Obama really opens up the south. He doesn't feel culturally alien, I should say, in those parts of the country.
2008 is arguably - like 2004 and to a lesser extent 2000 - the Democrats to lose. I think Obama would win a landslide against Romney or Giuliani (Huckabee would be the toughest opponent in my book for any Democrat).
For anyone willing to listen: Hillary Clinton will not win a general election campaign. This woman is not capable of holding her own base, much less reach out to the all-important swing voters. Her nomination will depress Democratic turnout across the nation, crippling not only her chances but the prospects of Democratic congressional candidates as well.
I have probably voted (at all levels of government) for nearly 1000 Democrats in my life, and NO Republicans. Not one; not ever. The same can be said for much of my family. I am, therefore, a "reliable" Democratic voter, the likes of which ANY Democratic presidential candidate must rely.
For those considering supporting HRC for the nomination, hear me loud and clear: I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Hillary Clinton. I cannot be complicit in the continuation of a hyper-partisan political culture that Clinton will foster. My view, while anecdotal, is shared my many of my friends and family members--all of whom are as "reliable" Democratic voters as me.
As an Obama supporter, I once thought that Clinton's Republican detractors were merely partisan lunatics who long ago lost any objectivity. However, throughout this primary campaign I have come to see exactly why so many voters are irretrievably put off by Hillary and Bill Clinton. This family will say whatever it takes to win, and will say nothing about why they SHOULD win. Whether it is Bill's revisionist history about the Iraq war, Hillary's flip-flop on "attacking" fellow Democrats and evasive non-answers or the campaign's hostility towards Obama now that they see him as the threat that he is, this husband and wife team (and their "vaunted machine") has helped this voter to see the light.
I expect lies, distortions and partisanship from Republicans; I will not not tolerate it from a Democrat, nor will I EVER vote for a candidate who exemplifies (and seems to enjoy) it. If Hillary is the nominee, she will not have my support, nor the support of many, many others in her own party. And don't even get me started on her ability to bring Independents and Republicans into the fold....
the basis of the article assumes that the people will do as the establishment wants.
the party establishment in NH may have gone to Clinton, just like the party establishment elsewhere but, that doesn't mean voters will fall into line.
Clinton paid of vilsack's debt in exchange for a loyal lapdog to head up her establishment in Iowa and yet, the voters are not listening.
Her biggest sew up is of the Nevada establishment and yet, again the voters are rejecting her as shown by her mere 6 point lead over Obama.
What the clintons and the establishment do not understand is that in a change election, the establishment, along with their chosen candidate, are the referendum and are usually rejected. Especially this year when the voters are even more angry and distrusting of anything that smacks of establishment.
and we all know that clinton is queen of the insider establishment and the corruption that goes with it.
Obama will kick her a**
Moreover, please ask yourself why there is such a longing on the part of Hillary's supporters to go back to the 1990's. Don't allow the historically bad performance of George W. Bush to lower the standard to such a degree that you view the 90's as a success.
Consider, for the moment, the following:
1. The Democratic party was FAR WORSE OFF at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency than it was at the beginning. We lost seats in state legislatures and governors positions across the country; we lost the majority in the House; we lost the majority in the Senate; and we lost the White House even though we nominated Bill's vice president.
2. Bill Clinton, a far more gifted politician than Hillary, left virtually NO LEGACY that was not erased by the end of George W. Bush's first year (not first term; first YEAR) in office. Looking back, it is hard to find a single positive achievement of the 8 Clinton years besides the Family and Medical Leave Act that still exists. Is this really the best we can do?
Please, will some Hillary supporter explain to me what Hillary's plan is to be a more effective president than her husband? I don't want to lose the Democratic gains in state legislatures, governors positions or our slim majorities in the House and Senate. More importantly, I want a president who will leave a legacy that can survive his/her term in office by more than one year. How will Hillary achieve this where her FAR more capable husband failed so miserably? Anyone?
I echo the thoughts of Kathy Sullivan completely. You only have to see Hillary Clinton in person to know that she will be a fine President from Day 1. Any Democrat will easily beat any Republican, but Clinton will be the best at cleaning up the mess left by The Worst President Ever.
As far as Clinton being "divisive" -- who cares?
The Clinton Haters are a tiny bunch of petty little bullies. Pissing them off is actually one of my favorite reasons for supporting Senator Clinton.
This is hilarious! First Hillary was going to roll through the primary, crushing all challengers. She was light years ahead in all the states. Now that people are actually paying attention the race --they realize that they don't want to have to hold their nose when they enter the voting booth.
Hillary is now forced to feed these BS stories to her acolytes in the media. It's actually pretty pathetic that these "journalists" are sitting around playing footsie with the candidates. Mark my words -- there is no way Hillary can be president. If she is our nominee, be prepared to see president Giuliani or Romney.
Every lifelong democrat knows of at least 4 or 5 fellow democrats that will never vote for Hillary. Let's stop drinking the Clinton Kool Aid and elect someone we can be proud of.
Recent polls have shown Obama receiving great momentum in all of the early states (except Nevada). In some polls, Obama has overtaken Clinton in Iowa (within the margin of error). If this momentum continues and he wins Iowa, Hillary's only real firewall will be New Hampshire, which I think is a long shot after such a crushing blow. I'm not saying that a loss in Iowa will be the end of her, but she'll have quite a mountain to climb.
If Obama keeps running the campaign he's running then I don't see him losing in Iowa. This being said, New Hampshire should fall into place for him. Given recent poll numbers, it wouldn't take much to swing the majority in his favor. He should then go on to win the nomination.
If Hillary holds out there, we should see a bloody and even fight on Super Duper Fantastic Deluxe Tuesday.
Iowa is vital for Obama and New Hampshire is vital for Clinton.
To all the Clinton sycophants out there: we are Really Sick of this act, the lip-biting, oh-so-sincere Bill out there boosting Hillary. As an independent, here's the deal: I'll go with Obama, but if you give me Hillary, I'll go with Rudy or whoever, or just sit this one out. I just can't stomach the idea of 8 more years of the insufferable Clintons, especially him.
If Hillary is nominated, she will awaken the conservatives. There will be so much opposition to her and the Democratic party in the general election.
Obama can unite the Democratic Party, silence the conservatives, capture the moderate vote, and sweep the general election.
To all you Billary fans: Before casting your vote for Hillary, think only about Hillary and not Bill. However much influence he may have, SHE will be running the country. Take another good look at this candidate and think who would really unite the party and the nation.
Wake up, Democrats! If you nominate Hillary there could easily be another Republican in the White House for another 4-8 years.
Obamania 08.
This election is the Democrats to loose. And loose they will if they continue with placing HRC into the general election. The Republicans are still stinging from their losses in the last election and are highly motivated to win. By placing HRC on the ticket the Democrats will be poking the elephant to stampede and once again the Clinton's, along with the massive Reid/Pelosi failures, can give the Republicans the Presidency, Senate, and House.