New Column: "Notes on Iowa"
Friday, 04 January 2008 - 591 words
One could comfortably assume that once Iowa rolls up its sidewalks, we can go back to ignoring it for another four years. Regretfully, however, the closer we come to continuous election cycles, the closer we come to All Iowa, All the Time; the next crop of malcontents will start drifting in two years from now, meandering in corner diners and boring everyone anew. Ten months before Election Day, those of us with attention spans cannot help but feel utterly exhausted; all their faces and ideas already seem to blend together. Who do you support? Huckabamaclintmey. That’s my guy. Or gal.
Despite their inherent silliness, the Iowa caucuses do sometimes force pleasant occurrences. Senators Biden and Dodd thought enough of the results to finally get the hint and pull the plugs on their respective campaigns. Were that the senators could have had these moments of clarity months ago, and spare themselves (and us, the citizens they wanted so badly to serve) the indignity of one dopey, twitchy debate performance after another.
On the other hand, Ron Paul took his fifth place finish as a mandate and vowed to plunge headlong into New Hampshire, South Carolina, and presumably Super Tuesday where, after repeatedly being stomped like a hippie at Altamont, he might also get the hint. In the late hours, Greta Van Susteren wondered why Doctor Paul wasn’t invited to participate in a Fox debate, arguing that someone who has garnered ten percent of the caucus vote is a force to be taken seriously and should be allowed to sit at the adult table.
And for most candidates, that case could be logically made. In Doctor Paul’s case, ten percent of Iowa caucus goers means that every one of the State’s 11,232 “9/11 Truthers” took it upon themselves to trudge through the weather and voice their discontent at the Bush administration’s imploding Tower 7 (wink, wink) by casting a drunken shout for Paul, who has, by the way, suggested the United States should have no presence whatsoever in the Arab Middle East. Paul has the Howard Dean bug: He attracts too few serious people to him, and his foreign policy stance is demonstrably naïve.
More likely than not, Senator Clinton’s drubbing was simply the latest incarnation of Iowa’s State gesture: thumbing its nose at a frontrunner. Super Tuesday will sort all that business out. What we do know is that Clinton has made virtually no headway in endearing herself to people who, whatever their reasons, don’t like her; those who dislike her now are going to continue doing so (your author included).
It’s not just because Hillary Clinton presents herself with all the subtlety and nuance of a Triple H ring entrance (compare her caucus night speech to Senator Obama’s and you’ll see it). Unconsciously, she reminds millions of people – not just men, either – of the woman they’ve always disliked most: the nameless woman was (or is) shrill, needlessly domineering, dishonest, and irritating; she carries an undeserved sense of entitlement and, when faced with opposition, sees more fit to bulldoze through it, or curse it, rather than face it honestly.
If Senator Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, the story of how she combated this disconnect will be the great narrative. It’s not as though Democrats find themselves in a position where they must hold their noses and vote Clinton; standing opposite her is a man who, whatever his failings in political philosophy, comes off as more honest, fluid, well-meaning and, frankly, smarter. More than before, Hillary Clinton misjudges Barack Obama at her peril.
One could comfortably assume that once Iowa rolls up its sidewalks, we can go back to ignoring it for another four years. Regretfully, however, the closer we come to continuous election cycles, the closer we come to All Iowa, All the Time; the next crop of malcontents will start drifting in two years from now, meandering in corner diners and boring everyone anew. Ten months before Election Day, those of us with attention spans cannot help but feel utterly exhausted; all their faces and ideas already seem to blend together. Who do you support? Huckabamaclintmey. That’s my guy. Or gal.
Despite their inherent silliness, the Iowa caucuses do sometimes force pleasant occurrences. Senators Biden and Dodd thought enough of the results to finally get the hint and pull the plugs on their respective campaigns. Were that the senators could have had these moments of clarity months ago, and spare themselves (and us, the citizens they wanted so badly to serve) the indignity of one dopey, twitchy debate performance after another.
On the other hand, Ron Paul took his fifth place finish as a mandate and vowed to plunge headlong into New Hampshire, South Carolina, and presumably Super Tuesday where, after repeatedly being stomped like a hippie at Altamont, he might also get the hint. In the late hours, Greta Van Susteren wondered why Doctor Paul wasn’t invited to participate in a Fox debate, arguing that someone who has garnered ten percent of the caucus vote is a force to be taken seriously and should be allowed to sit at the adult table.
And for most candidates, that case could be logically made. In Doctor Paul’s case, ten percent of Iowa caucus goers means that every one of the State’s 11,232 “9/11 Truthers” took it upon themselves to trudge through the weather and voice their discontent at the Bush administration’s imploding Tower 7 (wink, wink) by casting a drunken shout for Paul, who has, by the way, suggested the United States should have no presence whatsoever in the Arab Middle East. Paul has the Howard Dean bug: He attracts too few serious people to him, and his foreign policy stance is demonstrably naïve.
More likely than not, Senator Clinton’s drubbing was simply the latest incarnation of Iowa’s State gesture: thumbing its nose at a frontrunner. Super Tuesday will sort all that business out. What we do know is that Clinton has made virtually no headway in endearing herself to people who, whatever their reasons, don’t like her; those who dislike her now are going to continue doing so (your author included).
It’s not just because Hillary Clinton presents herself with all the subtlety and nuance of a Triple H ring entrance (compare her caucus night speech to Senator Obama’s and you’ll see it). Unconsciously, she reminds millions of people – not just men, either – of the woman they’ve always disliked most: the nameless woman was (or is) shrill, needlessly domineering, dishonest, and irritating; she carries an undeserved sense of entitlement and, when faced with opposition, sees more fit to bulldoze through it, or curse it, rather than face it honestly.
If Senator Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, the story of how she combated this disconnect will be the great narrative. It’s not as though Democrats find themselves in a position where they must hold their noses and vote Clinton; standing opposite her is a man who, whatever his failings in political philosophy, comes off as more honest, fluid, well-meaning and, frankly, smarter. More than before, Hillary Clinton misjudges Barack Obama at her peril.
posted by Brian S. Wise | 8:13 AM
<< Home