BETWEEN THE LINES
Jonathan Alter
Dubuque’s Got the ‘Joe Mo’!
Should Clinton lose Iowa, the door might open for second-tier candidates to start getting competitive.
"America is still ready for a white male!" an overcaffeinated, white female Iowan shouted at me after a Joe Biden event in Mason City, Iowa, last week. There was nothing racist or sexist in her tone, merely zealous support for her man and the firm conviction that a pale male is still the Democrats' best bet to recapture the White House. For months, the strongest white boy in the campaign has been John Edwards, who started organizing in Iowa in 2003 and never stopped. Edwards may yet prevail; Iowa is once again as fluid as ethanol. But if he doesn't win the Jan. 3 caucuses—he's been steadily losing altitude since early summer—he says he'll drop out. That might leave a two-person race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but I doubt it.
Obama is dealing the hot hand in Iowa right now. Caucus-goers pay less attention to debates in far-off places than to events at home. The pivotal Nov. 10 Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner (the same event where John Kerry got his mojo in 2004) brought 9,000 screaming Democrats to Des Moines in a test of organizational strength won handily by Obama. Then he salvaged the otherwise stupefying evening with an inspirational closing speech in which he addressed why he doesn't want to wait a few years by invoking what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the fierce urgency of now."
If Clinton wasn't worried about Obama in Iowa, she wouldn't be bashing him every chance she gets. Should she lose there, the door might open for a second-tier candidate to get competitive. You think I'm crazy? That's what they said when I wrote about Mike Huckabee in August.
If Clinton and Obama were arguing about anything other than experience, it wouldn't be possible for Biden, Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson to get the slightest traction, even with a better-than-expected finish. But by staking her claim on her preparation for the White House, Clinton has kicked off a fuller discussion on what constitutes real qualifications. Experience usually counts for nothing in presidential politics (remember graybeards like Scoop Jackson, Richard Lugar and Dick Gephardt going nowhere?), but this time a "double E" candidate—experience and electability—could at least become a factor.
After Iowa, the surviving white guy in a shrunken field will get a chance to stress his record, especially when the usual "buyers' remorse" sets in about the front runner. On foreign policy, Biden persuaded a reluctant President Clinton to intervene militarily in Bosnia, which saved thousands of lives at little cost. Dodd authored the Central American peace plan in the 1980s that won a Nobel Prize for Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. Richardson struck advantageous deals with dictators on behalf of the Clinton administration. By contrast, Hillary negotiated nothing and was present at no major meetings on foreign policy and national security after 1994. She reviewed some presidential speeches (including the one announcing the bombing of terrorist camps crafted in an awkward husband-and-wife session on Martha's Vineyard just after President Clinton confessed to the Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998), gave an important address at a Beijing conference on women and traveled to 80 countries as a good-will ambassador. But these contributions are more reminiscent of Eleanor Roosevelt than, say, Al Gore.
On domestic policy, Hillary was essentially sidelined after her disastrous 1994 health-care plan. The State Children's Health Insurance Program she touts was actually something the Clinton administration stalled on until pressured by Ted Kennedy and Dodd, who also led the seven-year fight for the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Clinton crime bill that included 100,000 new cops was Biden's legislation, and Bob Rubin, while now endorsing Hillary, grumbled about her judgment and never let her in on economic policy when he was Treasury secretary. Clinton was still the most influential First Lady in history, and she has a lot more familiarity with the upper reaches of government than Obama. But if her inevitability is destroyed in Iowa, her "experience" might not be much help.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »



Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: chowder @ 12/23/2007 10:24:42 AM
Comment: I agree with Soonerthought in regards to Joe Biden being ignored by the media. It is criminal and I have written countless letters to cable news media, mainstream networks and newspapers pleading with them to give fair coverage to the candidates. CNN would be comical concerning their favoritism in the debates if the presidency of the United States wasn't on the line! So thank you Jonathan for looking past the popularity contest in the Democratic arena. The second tier candidates are far, far more ready and experienced for office than the top tier, especially Obama. I just don't understand what Iowans are thinkg. MoJoe.
Posted By: marytnurse @ 12/14/2007 11:52:13 AM
Comment: I'm still caucusing for the one with the wisdom, true leadership in the face of adverse consequences personally on Iraq, ethical and moral integrity, strength of character, and the true willingness to unite rather than further divide this nation so split by the last 30 or so years of politicians such as is the second tier and baseless Clinton. But thanks for the intelligent read!!! All our greatest presidents have been 'inexperienced' Washintgon insiders. Barack Obama '08 begins here in Iowa.
Posted By: Soonerthought @ 12/05/2007 10:52:45 PM
Comment: Thanks Jonathan, for giving Sen. Biden his due. The lack of attention paid to this esteemed senator by the media is almost criminal. Biden is the best candidate we have. Go Joe!