On Super Tuesday II (March 3), the seemingly invincible juggernaut of Senator Barack Obama was temporarily beached by "Hurricane" Hillary. Although Senator Obama won his twelfth straight primary in Vermont, putting the Clinton campaign on the brink of defeat, a "Rocky" moment took place as Senator Hillary Clinton won the other three contests on offer—Rhode Island, Ohio and Texas—revitalising her presidential nomination aspirations.
The question now is whether a continued high tide of support will refloat Senator Obama's campaign for him to become the Democratic nominee in the U.S. presidential election.
This may have been answered on Saturday March 8 as Senator Obama won the Wyoming caucus 61 percent to Senator Clinton's 38 per cent as record numbers of Democrats participated. The remaining states should lean more towards Senator Obama than Senator Clinton, probably enough to offset a predicted win by Senator Clinton in delegate-rich Pennsylvania on April 22.
The Delegate Count
The twists and turns in this epic struggle to become the Democratic nominee to run against the Republican candidate, John McCain, are taking on the aura of an American soap opera. Before the first caucus in Iowa on January 3, the Clinton camp thought their candidate was a shoe-in, as she was the best-known and the most experienced candidate among the Democratic contenders. She was well ahead in the polls as late as October 2007 and her nomination was treated as little more than a formality by her campaign team at that time. In particular, they believed the campaign would be all over by Super Tuesday (Feb. 5) when 24 states held primaries and caucuses on the same day. This was supposed to provide Senator Clinton with a knock-out blow.
What they had failed to take into account was the new kid on the block, Senator Obama. In a shock result, out of the eight candidates in the race in Iowa, Senator Obama came in first and Senator Clinton third. Being the first of the caucuses and primaries, this gave Senator Obama tremendous momentum and made him a front page news item. Iowa also set the tone for the entire campaign as Senator Obama's message of change and hope resonated more with voter's than Senator Clinton's message of greater experience.
Although Senator Clinton won the big states of New York and California on Super Tuesday (Feb. 5), along with six smaller states, Senator Obama won 14 states and ended up with more delegates because of the proportional split of delegates. Going into Super Tuesday II, he had won 11 straight primaries, often by large margins, and had well over 100 more delegates than Senator Clinton, as well as more total popular votes. Although he lost the two big states of Texas and Ohio, he still maintained his delegate lead by around 110. Because of the Texas two-step system, even though he narrowly lost the popular vote, it appears he actually gained more delegates than Senator Clinton.
What the win did for Senator Clinton was to revitalise her campaign and put her on the offensive. Had she lost Ohio and Texas, she would have had little hope of continuing. An interesting aside here is that Rush Limbaugh, an ultra-conservative Republican, called on conservative Republicans in these two states "to cross over, pimp yourselves for a day, vote for Hillary to keep this campaign going, this Uncivil War, Democrat Party."
Republican Eric Klieber, 56, of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, said: "I voted for Hillary. John McCain has a better chance of beating her than Barack Obama." Polls also show that Senator Obama has a better chance of beating John McCain than Senator Clinton.
Republicans want to see both Democratic candidates continue their battle, hoping their attacks against each other will weaken their chances in the presidential election. It seems this strategy might have taken traction in these two conservative states and it may well have skewed the results in Senator Clinton's favour. It also appears that this Republican strategy will continue.
Change vs. Old Guard Politics
Senator Clinton has had her eye on the presidency for many years and a lot of people sense that she believes it is her right. Her candidacy was openly discussed from 2002. On January 20, 2007, she announced her intention to become a candidate for the 2008 presidential race on her website, which stated: "I'm in. And I'm in to win." The question is does this mean win at any cost?
After her camp realised they were locked into a real contest with Senator Obama, the rhetoric intensified. A number of voters perceive Senator Clinton as divisive, polarising and untrustworthy—the type of politics Senator Obama rails against. In Wisconsin, he said: "I understand that Senator Clinton periodically, when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way to try to boost her appeal. But this kind of gamesmanship is not what the American people are looking for." Senator Obama has pledged to distance his campaign from tit-for-tat mud-slinging and personal attacks, although not always successfully.
In the South Carolina primary, things turned really nasty. Both Bill and Senator Clinton made disparaging comments about Senator Obama that eroded her black support and both candidates got into a real bickering match. In the end, Senator Clinton lost big—55 percent to 27 percent. After this, Bill Clinton was relegated to the back lots. In Texas, Senator Obama stated: "Today, Senator Clinton told us there is a choice in this race. And you know, I couldn't agree with her more. It's a choice between a politics that offers more of the same division and distraction that didn't work in South Carolina, it didn't work in Wisconsin and it isn't going to work in Texas—or a new politics of common sense, common purpose and shared sacrifices."
From the beginning, Senator Clinton has portrayed herself as more experienced, largely based on her time as First Lady during her husband's (Bill Clinton's) tenure as president. As far as holding an elected political office though, Senator Obama has actually served longer. Regardless, the Clinton campaign continues to cast Senator Obama as having little experience, of being all rhetoric and no substance, and of not being up to the job, even though their policies are remarkably similar.
There are parallels here with other campaigns, including the Kevin Rudd—John Howard campaign for prime minister in Australia. The Howard team made the very same accusations against Mr Rudd. Even Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest US presidents, was accused of not looking like a typical presidential candidate, of being too inexperienced—having served only two years in the House—and of having no track record in foreign affairs. Yet, Mr Lincoln was elected president in 1860 over Stephen A. Douglas, the most powerful man in the Senate at the time. Likewise, Kevin Rudd was elected by a landslide. And General Dwight D. Eisenhower had no previous political experience whatsoever when he was elected president.
When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, he was accused of being inexperienced. He ironically responded: "The same old experience is not relevant. You can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience." Experience in and of itself is not a determinant factor. Although Senator Clinton does have a lot of experience, many see it as the experience of the "Old Guard" politics—the politics of special interest groups, of lobbyists, of corruption, of dirty politics—"the wrong kind of experience." At the Milwaukee, Wisconsin rally, US Representative Gwen Moore (Dem, Wis) referred to Senator Clinton as "armed with so-called experience; doing the same thing, the same way as all the dynasties of the past; armed with special-interest money; wearing the helmet of fear, the breastplate of pride."
As in Iowa, Senator Obama's message of change and hope, rather than the politics of fear, continues to gain momentum. Senator Clinton has constantly repudiated this message as having no substance, of being all talk and no action. She seems to miss the point that is resonating with so many voters. In truth, Senator Obama's policies are just as substantive as Senator Clinton's, although there are key differences.
In the Texas debate, Senator Obama said: "The reason that this campaign has done so well is because people understand that it is not just a matter of putting forward policy positions. Senator Clinton and I share a lot of policy positions. But if we can't inspire the American people to get involved in their government, and if we can't inspire them to go beyond the racial divisions and the religious divisions and the regional divisions that have plagued our politics for so long, then we will continue to see the kind of gridlock and non-performance in Washington that is resulting in families suffering in very real ways."
And inspire people he has. Record numbers of new voters have been motivated to participate in the political process. Senator Obama's message is sticking. "I've never done anything like this before," said Mr Cox, 24, a cell phone store manager from south-east Houston. "I have actually never even voted in a presidential election before, but Obama is different."
Like the Kennedys and Martin Luther King junior, Senator Obama understands the power of words—words that stimulate the hearts and minds of people yearning for a change of the Old Guard, for a new world order, a world of hope. This has been the substance of his speeches.
"…words are important, words matter. And the implication that they don't diminishes how important it is to speak to the American people directly about making America as good as its promise."
Many voters say they are tired of the oligarchies of the Clintons and the Bushes, and their politics as usual. This is the reason Senator Obama has had an almost messianic appeal – his message has deeply touched people and resonated with their aspirations for change, for something better.
Where to Now?
It looks like things are definitely going to hot up. Senator Clinton has begun to step up her attacks on Senator Obama. Her personal attacks and questioning his readiness to defend the country seemed to gain traction in the Texas and Ohio primaries, particularly her "3am in the morning phone call" TV ad. This ad was seen as raising fears that Senator Obama would not be as qualified as her to deal with a crisis and helped her win both Texas and Ohio. As for her claim to greater experience, Mike Dorning and Christi Parsons from The Chicago Tribune wrote: "While Hillary Clinton represented the US on the world stage at important moments while she was first lady, there is scant evidence that she played a pivotal role in major foreign policy decisions or in managing global crises."
She has brought Senator Obama's association with fundraiser and developer "Tony" Rezko, who she has referred to as a slum lord, into question. Mr. Rezko is currently under Federal indictment for allegedly receiving kickbacks for steering state business from two state boards to which he had ties. Mr Rezko also contributed to Republicans. The Obama campaign has donated all the funds received from Mr. Rezko to charities.
Senator Clinton has to be very careful throwing rocks in her glass house as the Clinton's have many skeletons in their own closet—Whitegate, Filegate and Travelgate involved her directly and she was accused by the FBI of perjury. Her refusal to release income tax records like Senator Obama has done and the $700,000 Bill Clinton earned for his foundation by selling stock given to him from an Internet search company that was co-founded by a convicted felon and backed by the Chinese regime, are other concerns. Then there's always Bill Clinton's impeachment and indiscretions, and the list goes on.
Senator Obama has meanwhile been raising Senator Clinton's vote in favour of the Iraq War, when he opposed it. He says this negates any mantle she claims to have of better leadership ability. He has also raised the issue of her campaign being bankrolled to the greatest extent of any candidate by lobbyists.
What both candidates have to avoid now is creating a rift so great among Democrats that no matter who is nominated, irreparable damage will have been done. Democratic officials now fear that Senator Clinton may be willing to do whatever it takes to defeat Senator Obama and totally fracture the Democratic Party.
The New York Times columnist David Brooks opined: "Unless they consciously reject conventional politics, the accusations will build on each other. And the Clinton people will draw them every step of the way. Clinton can't compete on personality, but a knife fight is her only real hope of victory. She has nothing to lose because she never promised to purify America." The attrition has already begun. Senator Obama's foreign-policy adviser Samantha Power had to apologise and then resign after referring to Senator Clinton as a "monster" in an off the record remark to The Scotsman newspaper. Meanwhile, when Senator Obama once again raised the issue of Senator Clinton's tax returns, her communication's director Howard Wolfson deflected this by comparing Senator Obama to Ken Starr, the prosecutor who led to her husband's impeachment as president. Craig Gordon of Newsday said: "It's hard to think of a worse put-down from Hillary Clinton's camp than comparing someone to Ken Starr," yet Mr Wolfson wasn't even chastised by Senator Clinton for the comment.
Who will be the victor in the Democratic primaries? This is up to the candidates and how they conduct themselves—with decorum and dignity or with gutter politics. What Senator Obama has to do now is stick to the principles he has espoused that have brought him this far and not adopt Clintonesque-style polarising politics. He can't possibly win a mud-slinging match with Senator Clinton.
Senator Obama's campaign has clearly demonstrated that the public wants to move away from such Old Guard politics. However, if the contest remains nasty until the Democratic Convention, the positive side is that it will help steel Senator Obama and prepare him, if he wins the Democratic nomination, for the race against Senator McCain, who will also throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at him.
Feeds