| Based on the results of their recent early state polls, The Los Angeles Times has an article worth reading on Hillary Clinton winning the support of Democrats who want an immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq. It makes me wonder if this entire residual forces argument has any chance to resonate with voters:
Gayle Moore, an Iowa nurse, wants U.S. troops "out, out, out" of Iraq as soon as possible. Darleen McCarthy of South Carolina fears that Iraq is turning into "another Vietnam."
But when these two Democrats vote in January to help decide their party's 2008 presidential nominee, neither plans to support the self-styled antiwar candidates. Instead, they are siding with the one top contender who voted to authorize the invasion and has refused to apologize for that -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"It's just a gut feeling," said Moore, 53, a mother of five. "It's her experience."(…)
"It's just the way Hillary Clinton handles herself," said McCarthy, 55, who lives near Myrtle Beach. "She says what she wants, and I think she'll let the American people know exactly what's going on."
It is easy to read this section of the article and dismiss it as unscientific "person on the street" interviews, and I admit that reading those comments made me think about once again banging my head against hard, flat surfaces. However, there are more than just occasional examples. According to the same article, Clinton holds a commanding lead in early states on Iraq:
The poll, which surveyed registered voters who planned to turn out for the primaries or caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, found that a plurality of Democratic primary or caucus voters in each state thought Clinton would be "the best at ending the war in Iraq" -- 33% in Iowa, 32% in New Hampshire and 36% in South Carolina. Clinton holds substantial leads even among voters who listed the war as the top priority facing the candidates.
Democratic pollster Dave Beattie, who is not affiliated with a campaign, said Clinton's rivals risked reaching a "point of diminishing returns" if they focused too heavily on differences between them and Clinton on Iraq.
Most voters, he said, are not concerned about the differences, given that each candidate is essentially critical of the war and promises to end it.(…)
"None of the Democratic candidates has a position that is outside the realm of acceptable for what the Democratic electorate is looking for," Beattie said, even though "it may not be their absolute favorite position."
Hillary Clinton does indeed promise to end the war. On the section of her website entitled "ending the war," there is a version of the refrain she has often used in the campaign: "she has also been clear: if George Bush refuses to end the war, when she is president, she will." Even though she voted for the war five years ago, has not apologized for that vote, and has made it clear that she will leave at least 40,000 American troops in Iraq for an indeterminate amount of time, she keeps says that she will end the war, and that most troops need to come home. Now, I don't think it is possible to end the war while still keeping tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq. I also don't think politicians who say they will end the war but also say they will keep troops in Iraq are being honest with Democratic voters. However, the fact is that there has not been a meaningful debate on residual forces among the candidates or in the media thus far. As such, there is not reason for me to expect that the argument will resonate with many Democrats, at least yet. Given what she has said, and the lack of debate on this issue, why wouldn't Democratic voters think that Clinton is going to end the war?
Hillary Clinton is a much smarter politician than Joe Lieberman. Lieberman had to blow a huge lead in the 2004 primary campaign to finish a distant fifth or sixth, and then lose a primary in 2006 to Ned Lamont before he finally realized that he needed to tell people that he wanted to end the war. He didn't mean it, but he said it repeatedly during the general election campaign against Lamont, and it turned a tied campaign where Lamont had the momentum into a nine point victory for Lieberman. During the general election, no one in the media or in the Democratic establishment called him on it, either. While the situation is not precisely analogous, much the same thing is happening now. Most of the Democratic establishment wants to keep residual forces in Iraq, most of her opponents want to keep residual troops in Iraq, and reporters stenograph Clinton's lines about wanting to end the war and bringing troops home. As such, why shouldn't Democratic voters think that she will end the war? Unlike 2004 and 2006 primary election Lieberman, who repeatedly ran paid advertising telling Democratic voters that he disagreed with them, Clinton is instead saying what most other Democrats are saying. This is working so well, that not only do Democratic voters overwhelmingly think she will end the war, but they actually think she is the candidate most likely to end the war by large amounts.
Reading this article left with a tremendous feeling of hopelessness and disempowerment. Is it really possible to break through this bubble of disinformation on Iraq that Democratic elites are complicit in maintaining? Is there enough pressure from not only the base, but also from other candidates and the media in order to really have an honest debate about residual forces in Iraq? I have been writing about this more or less continuously for five months now, and I feel that progress has been slow, at best. Can policy ideas change campaigns? Right now, I am not feeling a huge amount of confidence that they do. Maybe I should just start writing about something vacuous, like change versus experience, instead. At least that way I would be in the mainstream of public discourse on the 2008 campaign. |
