The Impossible Will Take a Little While
Soul of a Citizen
Lectures
Buy Loeb's Books
Pass the Word
Receive Loeb's Articles
by email
About Paul Loeb
· Paul Loeb's Other Books
· Paul Loeb Bio
· Paul Loeb's Web Links
Media Misses Story: Obedwards Won New Hampshire
By Paul Rogat Loeb
As media commentators proclaim Hillary Clinton's rebirth from the ashes of defeat, they miss a critical story--Obama and Edwards won the New Hampshire primary. Add together Obama's 36 percent and Edwards's 17, and they beat Clinton's 39 percent by 14 points. And because the Democratic primaries have proportionate representation, they'll in fact come out with more combined delegates—13 to Clinton's 9. From everything I can tell, those backing Obama or Edwards solidly pick the other as their second choice. So if only one were running, they'd be opening up an unambiguous lead. But because Clinton's two main opponents have effectively split the vote, her three-point victory over Obama has revived a campaign that seemed on the verge of meltdown just a few days ago.
So what are Obama and Edwards or their supporters to do about this? First, remind those covering the race that although Clinton got a split-vote plurality, most Democrats still don't prefer her as their nominee. Real political differences separate Clinton from both Edwards and Obama. Edwards wasn't just being rhetorical when he said that both he and Obama represent voices for change, versus Clinton's embodiment of a Washington status quo—albeit a far saner one than the crazed Bush version. Clinton recently held a massive fundraising dinner with homeland security lobbyists, and has taken donations from Rupert Murdoch. Her chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, is CEO of a PR firm that prepped the Blackwater CEO for his recent congressional testimony, is aggressively involved in anti-union efforts, and has represented everyone from the Argentine military junta and Philip Morris to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster. Clinton supported an Iran vote so reckless that Jim Webb called it "Dick Cheney's fondest Pipe Dream," and did so, according to her campaign insiders, because she was covering herself for the general election. She's still not apologized for her Iraq vote.
Those who make up the Obedwards constituencies resist these approaches. That's part of what's driving them, along with a genuine passion for Obama and Edwards, and a sense, confirmed by the polls, that either of the two has a better shot at beating the leading Republicans than does Clinton. If we look just at delegates, both Iowa and New Hampshire advanced the Obedwards combined cause. But because the coverage has focused so exclusively on the Obama/Clinton match-up, they've missed that a solid majority of Democrats in both New Hampshire and Iowa rejected a candidate who a short while back was proclaiming her nomination as nearly inevitable.
If all those wary of Clinton coalesced around Obama, he'd become the odds-on favorite. But for now, Edwards is staying in, to raise fundamental issues about how divisions of wealth and power have damaged our democracy--and to offer the chance for his message to belatedly catch fire, or for Clinton and Obama to melt down. So at least for the moment, the Obedwards constituency may keep amassing a majority of elected delegates, while making it more difficult for Obama (or a longer-shot Edwards) to become the front-runner and clinch the nomination.
There are some partial solutions, though, even with both in the race. Beyond reminding the media of their convergences, Obama and Edwards could use their speeches, debates, and ads to highlight the real differences they have with Clinton and her approach, while minimizing their attacks on each other. Of course they need to focus primarily on their own strengths and visions, and the issues that drive them, but they also need to draw clear political lines.
Edwards has begun doing this. Obama needs to do it more, and respond more forcefully to the Clinton campaign's attacks, like their distortions of his record on Iraq and abortion choice. I think he can do this while continuing to flesh out what he stands for, in stories that people can understand.
It's a tricky dance, since Hillary, Bill, and their surrogates will continue to try to dismiss any criticisms as "the boys" ganging up on the woman. But the fundamental fault lines in this campaign are about whose interests the candidates are likely to heed, and they need to be articulated. Think back to Clinton's six years on the Wal-Mart board, during which she said nothing to protest the company's relentless union-busting and destruction of small-town businesses. Obama, meanwhile, worked at a law firm that represented community organizers, and Edwards won lawsuits on corporate malfeasance. The two need to highlight the links between their past history and their joint refusal to take donations from lobbyists, and their strong and early stands for fundamental campaign finance reform: Obama pushed a major bill while still in the Illinois legislature—Clinton signed on only after Common Cause ran a full-page Iowa ad. They should also challenge Clinton's argument that the way to make change is to reduce our expectations and hopes
Obama and Edwards could also make an even more explicit alliance. Each could pledge, for instance, to nominate the other for Vice President, or publicly state that if no candidate got an absolute majority going into the Democratic convention, whichever of the two trailed would throw their support to the other. Given the rules on proportionate representation, this would allow both to keep campaigning as passionately as possible without falling into the trap of political spoiler.
Most likely, all three candidates are going to stay in the race, at least for a while. But the more Obama and Edwards can keep reminding us all how much their supporters converge around resisting a politics ruled by money and fear, the more they'll increase their odds.
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While & Soul of a Citizen. See www.paulloeb.org