TNR BLOGS

May 15, 2008 | 8:03 PM
May 15, 2008 | 6:26 PM
May 15, 2008 | 4:42 PM

May 15, 2008 | 8:41 PM
May 15, 2008 | 7:06 PM
May 15, 2008 | 6:35 PM

May 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
May 02, 2008 | 5:26 PM
May 02, 2008 | 2:40 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
04.01.2008
Air Spin One

Hours after Hillary Clinton finished a stunning third in the Iowa caucuses, her press corps flew by charter jet directly to the campaign’s next battleground: Manchester, New Hampshire. For the duration of the two and a half hour flight, the aisles were jammed up as a cadre of Clintonites tirelessly spun a press corps whose members now believe they’re witnessing one of the great political collapses in modern history. (They’re also despondent for their careers: As the caucus returns took shape in the press filing center at the Hotel Fort Des Moines, one reporter had morosely joked that without Hillary to cover he would soon be out of a job.) Thus, like a crew of firefighters struggling to prevent a brushfire from turning into an inferno, Hillary’s spinners descended on the hacks bearing the message that the campaign has just begun.

The first to come down the aisle was press aide Jay Carson. “Extrapolating from 230,000 people is a mistake,” Carson said. The Clinton campaign “always knew” that the race would be decided on February 5, when millions of primary voters will have their say. (The words “February 5”  were a mantra at 35,000 feet.)

Soon after, Mark Penn appeared in the aisle. Penn doesn't care much for reporters and he suffered the scrum around him with a mild grimace. Penn invoked the other kery refrain of the night: "experience," and Hillary's preparedness for the White House. Some campaigns respond to defeat by retooling--think of George W. Bush re-casting himself a “Reformer With Results” after losing to John McCain in New Hampshire eight years ago. But Penn’s talking points suggested that there will be no Hillary relaunch. She will evidently plow ahead with the same experience message Iowans rejected last night. 

Penn, the number-cruncher, also emphasized the terrain on which he feels most comfortable: polls. As of Thurday morning, he told the hacks straining to catch his deadpanned observations, Hillary was a clear leader in the national polls. But Penn didn’t say how those numbers can withstand the coming storm of Obama worship that Iowa is sure to bring.

A few feet down the aisle from Penn was the longtime Cinton pal Terry McAuliffe, With a leather loafer propped up on an armrest and his booming voice hoarse and ragged over the engines’ roar, McAuliffe didn’t pretend that the national numbers Penn cited will last long. “I’m sure it’ll tighten.” But Hillary still has fight in her, he argued: “We’re ready to go!”--a presumably unintentional echo of Barack Obama’s famous catchphrase.

The preternaturally jolly McAuliffe is a good mad to have spinning for you in a pinch. But his good cheer dimmed when I asked him about Bill Richardson, who appears to have made an 11th-hour deal to throw his supporters to Obama. “How many times did [Clinton] appoint him?” McAuliffe marveled. “Two? U.N. Ambassador and Energy Secretary?” He looked at me, half-glaring, awaiting confirmation. “I don’t know,” I joked, “but who’s counting?” “I am,” McAuliffe said firmly.

For all the spinning, what no one could convincingly explain was what shape that fight will take and how it can succeed. The New Hampshire primary is in five days. Today, Friday, will be defined by coverage of Obama’s Iowa triumph. By primary day it will be too late for Hillary to change the storyline that she is a broken idol. That leaves her all of three days to do her work or risk a catastrophic second loss here.

She has few options. What card to the Clintons have left to play? Hillary has already worked to seem warmer and more likeable, with limited results. Going harshly negative against Obama is one option, but given his heroic glow would likely only make Hillary look bitter and nasty—and merely reinforce Obama’s case against “politics as usual.”

Then there’s the media. The Clinton campaign has long felt that the press is aligned against them--the Drudge Report is daily proof of the profit in bashing Hillary. Their frustration is amplified by a sense that Obama has had an easy ride, that the media’s instinct is to build him up while tearing her down. One of the campaign’s few hopes is that Obama’s ascendance will bring a new level of scrutiny--of his preparedness to be president, of his record in the Illinois state legislature. But one doesn’t get the sense from talking to the Clinton team that they expect any favors from the press. “I realize that some of you want it to be over in five days,” Carson said .

There are still straws to grasp. Hillary loyalists maintain faith in her iron support in New York and also California--whose vast numbers of Latino voters are thought to be skeptical of an African-American candidate. (One Democratic operative recently described this to me as the Do the Right Thing factor.) There is also the final Democratic debate Saturday evening, an opportunity to take Obama down a peg--but also the most pressurized moment Hillary has faced yet.

The little old ladies who love Hillary Clinton formed the symbolic core of her candidacy here in Iowa. For weeks her organizers fretted about grannies slipping on the ice en route to the caucuses. But now it may be Hillary herself who, as the classic advertisement put it, has fallen and can’t get up.

(Cross-posted here.)

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Friday, January 04, 2008 5:26 AM with 18 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ralphnelle said:

Brilliant post.

January 4, 2008 6:06 AM

Maverick_VII said:

God this is starting to make me wretch. It's bad enough that the MSM will uncritically throw themselves on the bandwagon of victory in Iowa followed by a brilliantly vacuous speech, but I was hoping for a little maturity from the various contributors here at TNR. No such luck.

What on earth does this matter? Everyone knows Obama can talk the talk...now he won a wildly unrepresentative state, voting in a wildly unrepresentative process. This shouldn't mean anything. Instead it's being written up like Obama's already taking the oath of office. It's enough to make me want to see Romney in the White House just to wipe the stupid smiles off everyone's faces. Give me politics as usual any day.

January 4, 2008 7:20 AM

psantillana said:

Yeah I don't think H has any more rabbits to pull out of the hat. She is trying to pound the word "ready" in our heads, and tag "change" on the end for good measure [what happened to "Turn up the Heat"?]. And I think she's riding a pretty weak rabbit; "ready" is supposed to = experience, and beyond the point made above that experience is losing to change, I don't think she even has much experience, just the appearance of it through proximity. She keeps saying she's fought for 35 years, but she does not get very specific about what was done in those years, never mind what she has to show for it. It sniffs of puffery and resume padding, which is awful if you're claiming experience as your identity.

January 4, 2008 7:37 AM

stgla said:

Good post, but please don't link to or cite that horrible John Judis piece.  That article was a cringe-inducing embarrassment.

January 4, 2008 8:29 AM

LDuncan said:

Well, today the heightened scrutiny of Obama has already begun.  In a long overdue piece, Charlie Peters took a close look at Obama's legislative record in Illinois and declared Obama to be tremendously effective, asserting as well that getting big things accomplished in a state legislature is often more difficult than getting things done in Congress.

January 4, 2008 9:36 AM

liebig said:

The empress has no clothes, as a lot of people outside the MSM and the party establishment have known all along.

January 4, 2008 9:40 AM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

Listen, I an thrilled that Obama won last night and though I preferred Clinton, either Obama or Edwards still would have tickled my pragmatic nuts...

the irony is that the MSM has long howled about how stupid it is that Iowa, a podunk state for sure, has such clout and how ridiculous the caucuses are...then after one night, they're ready to anoint the eventual nominee, in both parties!

Wow...why don't we just scrap the rest of the primaries and forget the whole thing?  Listen, I think that Obama has the Big Bush I Mo, but let's wait a few freakin days, until we have had a real primary, before we shut the book on Clinton, Edwards, and Romney...you people, sheesh...

January 4, 2008 10:23 AM

The Ignorant Populist said:

That huge turnout for Obama was surely helped by Republicans and Independents voting for the Democratic nominee! What an insane system.

Personally, I was left cold by Obama's speech. Change and Hope, right I get it. And that line about there being no Bllue or Red States but the United States of America is wearing a bit thin. One good line repeated over 6 years does not make a great orator. He looks a bit stiff and preachy to me.

I'm glad he won (as I predicted Edwards came second - kneel before me!) but his speech only highlighted his record thin experience. Frankly, his line about how he helped people in Chicago was a little flat.

The Huckster has real charisma and McCain would certainly give him a run for his money.

It ain't over yet.

(Can anyone explain to me why the Republican establishment is not getting behind the Huckster. He's even offering them they're fantasy regressive flat tax. I don't understand. Anyone?)

January 4, 2008 11:06 AM

virginiacentrist said:

Maverick_VII:

Is the Clinton strategy is to trash states where she loses? That might be incredibly effective!

Then again, Obama might just say, "Hey New Hampshire. IF you vote for me, Hillary will call you a bunch of podunk ignorant morons."

January 4, 2008 12:20 PM

virginiacentrist said:

The Ignorant Populist -

Generally - people had the exact opposite reaction. Everyone I was with had goosebumps. One woman said the following:

"I want to have sex with his speech writer."

Edwards, in contrast, gave one of the worst political speeches in memory. It was angry, bitter, pessimistic, paranoid, divisive, and just plain wrong...

January 4, 2008 12:25 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Oh please, VA. I thought you were a pro. The preacher stuff is really getting out of hand.

Look, the guy has run a superb campaign. Bravo. But he is not the enxt MLK, or even JFK. He's achieved so far what Jimmy Carter achjeved by January 1976. Praiseworthy, fine, but please stop larding this apple with sugary goo.

January 4, 2008 12:33 PM

butchie b said:

tep and VA, he's probably going to be a fine candidate, but I'm darned if I can tell you one thing he stands for.  Substantively, I mean.  Beyond health care for all (with no mention of costs) and a sit-down with President Nutjob and Kim Jong-Il.

Seriously, what's he got?

January 4, 2008 1:25 PM

blackton said:

butchie, Reagan was the last President that people knew what he stood for, for good or ill. We managed to survive Bush I and Clinton and this one too so far.  What a President can do is as much dictated by events outside of his control as in it, this is why I say I think Obama will be a great President for good times, and McCain the necessary one for bad times.

January 4, 2008 2:41 PM

teplukhin2you said:

blackton nails it. Increasingly I think of Obama as being similar, in terms of the popular perception and his political positioning, to Ronald Reagan in late summer/early autumn of 1980. A largely unknown quantity into which people from across the spectrum poured all kinds of hopes-- blue-collar workers in gritty northern cities viewed him as another FDR (!), for instance.

And if the GOP are stupid enough to nominate Huckabee-- has it occurred to them that the Nation's journalists are delighted with the Huckster and boost him at every opportunity?-- then the Obama : Reagan analogy's even more apt. Obama would defeat the cracker by roughly the same margin that Reagan defeated Carter.

This is not a "change" election any more than 1980 was. We are an utterly exhausted nation entering a recession, nervous about foreign economic rivals, fighting two wars that are both going badly as the world spins out of control. People want someone who seems to be able to turn things around, which means, in best American fashion, they want a new and sunny face, a happy warrior who speaks about "hope" and optimistic mush, preferably in preacher-like cadences.

I've no idea what Obama stands for either, but he knows the script that Americans want him to read from, and he's a good reader. Maybe he's just more cunning than the rest of us. For our sake I certainly hope so.

January 4, 2008 2:58 PM

butchie b said:

If my 2 good friends above are correct, my man McCain ought to be your choice.  I agree that the coming few years may be rocky.  Add to the above the bow wave of boomer retirements and what that means for our major social programs.

I do try to stay out of y'alls fights, but I thought maybe it was just my GOP nature to elide Obama's substance.  Eventually, he's going to need some.

January 4, 2008 4:11 PM

purcellneil said:

I think butchie is right about Obama - he and I have the same take on the phenom from Illinois.  And the Reagan comparison is hardly flattering to Obama - sure Reagan made us all feel good with his rhetoric and demeanor, but let's not forget his dismal performance as president.  Substance does eventually matter.

January 5, 2008 4:35 PM

The Plank said:

Well, not everyone. But Ron Fournier ( via TPM) provides a thorough accounting of all the super-delegates

February 13, 2008 11:17 AM

The Plank said:

In case you haven't seen the news, Bill Richardson is endorsing Obama . I seriously doubt there's

March 21, 2008 10:07 AM

Double click this space to insert your ad.