The Evitable Inevitable

This past week's Saturday Night Live's opening captures the political drama that unfolded following last Tuesday's debate in Philadelphia. (What MSNBC dubbed, "The Battle of Philadelphia.") For the first time in an otherwise sophisticated, rapid-fire, disciplined campaign, the front-runner fumbled. Amidst the on-slaught from her rivals, and the tough questioning from the moderators--NBC's Brian Williams and Tim Russert--Hillary Clinton had the worst performance of her primary campaign. Her campaign staff knew it. The morning after the debate, on a conference call, a staff member said that Tim Russert "should be shot," shortly thereafter taking it quickly back.

Hillary Clinton is the evitable inevitable. Just when we all thought that this was business as usual, that Hillary was going to storm through her primaries and be the de facto nominee by February, things quickly changed. Obama, Edwards, and even Dodd knew that it's either stop her now, or she'll be unstoppable. And they piled on her. The Clinton campaign released a video last Wednesday entitled the "Politics of Piling On," in which they try to portray Clinton as being unnecessarily picked on by the rest of her Democratic rivals. The message that they were trying to convey was that amidst the on-slaught from her rivals, she remained cool, that she stood her ground. The subtle message that did come through was as simple of this: the mean old white guys are picking on the only girl. The day after the debate she visited Wellesley, her Alma Mater, and said that her time at Wellesley prepared her to be able to be the only viable female presidential candidate. That Wellesley prepared her to break through the ultimate glass ceiling.

This is now Hillary Woman, hear her roar. Her campaign has seen the demographics and the polling data, and like George Wil mentioned yesterday, they're ready to tap into an extremely populated group of voters that can, if carefully nourished and played, be what the Evangelicals were for the Republicans. These are Hillary's foot soldiers. And these are women. For the first time ever, there are as many single women voters as there are married women voters. Single women are the treasure drove of the Democratic Party. They vote close to 60% Democrat and they're a huge portion of the electorate. They actually come out to vote. And while Hillary thought that the way to win was to act testosterone-strong, Thatcherite even, following Tuesday's performance, she's going back to her feminist roots. Will it work? I don't think so. She can't have it both ways. Will these women actually vote for Hillary? It's a possibility. But as Sen. Dodd mentioned, a Pew poll that came out stated that no matter what, close to 50% of the electorate will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton.

Signs that this new strategy isn't working can be seen in today's Politico where a report states that she's backing off this notion of being picked on by men, following a split in the Feminist camp of the Democratic party. The Politico, by the way has some of the best reporting out there on the debate, with key quotes. Roger Simon, their editor, summed it up quite nicely: "We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night." And it was just a great night for Obama and Edwards. We'll see how it plays out in Iowa, where Hillary--not running a national primary like Giuliani--must win to prove her inevitablity which translates to voters as electability. In Iowa, Clinton is leading Obama and Edwards, 29-27-20. Obama and Clinton are statistically tied due to being within the margin of error. And Edwards is looking to come back from behind and he'll be taking big shots at Hillary: “Who is honest? Who is sincere? Who has integrity? Not Hillary." Edwards has been doing this the strongest for a couple of months, even deploying his wife to go after her. Obama, trying to be Eugene McCarthy has taken on a more adversarial role too...even though HRC hit him back with it saying that he's now practicing what he preached against when he announced his candidacy. This is the problem with coming off as being holier-than-thou from the onset of the campaign.

In college I wrote a paper entitled, "1968: The Inaguration of Modern Presidential Elections." There I argued the following: "In many ways, the Election of 1968 is the permanent campaign. In Presidential Election Politics consciously or sub-consciously, we keep re-living 1968, in the sense that from it we received the inauguration of strategies and outcomes which have shaped how presidential elections are run and won. In 1968 we saw important background issues that became salient political concerns which influenced the outcome of that presidential election. While background issues are not enough to overwhelmingly dictate an outcome, when coupled with new political strategies and tactics, along with media influences which changed the way that campaigns were covered, 1968 has created a template by which presidential campaigns are made viable." And looking back at 1968, which was an amazing year in terms of Presidential Politics, I could've made the point that George Wil made yesterday--even the personalities are the same. Barack Obama as Eugene McCarthy/Bobby Kennedy. Hillary Clinton as Hubert Humphrey. And Humphrey won the Democratic Primary. And Rudy Giuliani as Richard Nixon. And Nixon won the Presidential Election. I'm thinking of elaborating on that essay, and really explore how we still remain in 1968.

Today's quick political updates:

• Edwards is going to keep up his attack on Clinton today in Iowa, going after her double-talk: "Votes like a Hawk in Washington, Talks like a Dove in Iowa and New Hampshire."


• Hillary Clinton is going to increase air time in Iowa as she's playing defense now against the Obama and Edwards campaigns. I think she's about to begin to circle the wagons in preparation for the Caucus. She needs to emerge fairly unscathed.


• Fred Thompson was on Meet the Press yesterday, and can I say that I was fairly impressed. This lackadaisical, ill-informed, narrative that the media has been running with concerning Thompson's campaign should have been dispelled by his appearance yesterday on the Church of Russert. He handled every question quite well, and seemed ready, eager and prepared.


• Giuliani: Mixed results. Today there are reports that he's picking up momentum in New Hampshire and South Carolina. In South Carolina, Giuliani is now in a statistical tie with fellow front-runners Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. Remember that Giuliani was going to lose the first primaries and he was banking on Tsunami Tuesday which is 92 days away. But with some in-roads that he's been making, he's assuming a clear position to be the leader in the early primaries. In Iowa and New Hampshire he's pouring in $5 Million dollars for direct-mail outreach and radio ads. I don't know if it'll work in Iowa though where if current tracking holds, Huckabee will come in 2nd place in Iowa after Romney. Rudy needs a close third, or a tie for second. In New Hampshire, he's right behind Romney. But like I said, they're still going after Florida and Tsunami Tuesday. Picking up on the mixed results for Rudy, today's Washington Post has an article on the fluidity of the Republican Nomination. Republicans have always been the most disciplined when it comes to presidential nominees. Some even said that the party used to "Crown" the nominee, that there always was an Heir-apparent. In national polls among Republicans, Giuliani is leading with 33% of the vote. By comparison, Hillary Clinton is leading the Democrats in national polls garnering 49% of the Democratic vote.
• If the election was held today: Clinton 50 - Giuliani 46; Clinton 52 - McCain 43; Clinton 56 - Thompson 40; Clinton 57 - Romney 39. This all may change when the new polls are taken this week, and when we can finally see how inevitable is HRC.