The War of Attrition
Primary elections in South Carolina take the national stage
NOTE: This is an updated version of the story that appeared in the January 9 print edition of The Beat that went to press on January 8 - before the results of the New Hampshire primary were known.
After the final tally from Iowa on January 3 scrambled the prospects of presidential candidates from both parties, the traveling political circus moved on to New Hampshire. As we go to press on the night of the Granite State primary, it appears all but certain that the electoral highway will soon be littered with additional casualties as more candidates wake up and taste the bitter brew of defeat until only two remain standing – then one. This meat-grinder is how we pick a president here in the United States. Well, sort of.
The attention of the nation now shifts to South Carolina as the pack shuffles from one grim scenario to the next like the Stations of the Cross – if you’ll pardon the passion play analogy. But candidates coming into our state have endured their fair share of suffering here, inflicted by their rivals with the eager participation of our homegrown hatchet squads. Recall how they eviscerated John McCain in 2000 on behalf of George W. Bush, events that made McCain’s subsequent cozying up to W all the more inexplicable.
The moral relativism of such tactics was explored this week on the PBS news program NOW with David Brancaccio’s report titled “Dirty Politics 2008.” Of course, the focus was on South Carolina with an extensive profile of misdeeds dating from the Lee Atwater era, made relevant to today by tracing the involvement of Atwater protégé Warren Tompkins in the 2000 gutting of McCain and attacks on Fred Thompson in 2007.
When journalist/author Joe Klein was in Columbia to cover an early Democratic presidential beauty pageant in 2003, he was still shaking his head over the attacks on McCain three years earlier. “All around the country, the 2000 South Carolina Republican primary was regarded as one of the dirtiest campaigns in American history,” marveled Klein. “But down here, it’s just business as usual.” Assuming Sen. McCain hasn’t actually fathered a black child since then, he should be inoculated against that particular charge this time around – but there’s plenty more where that came from.
If anything, there are signs the intensity of these political attacks could increase in ferocity this time around with the front-loading of the primary process. The Iowa results sent presumed front-runner Hillary Clinton reeling, but she rebounded with a narrow win in New Hampshire despite polling that showed her trailing – in some polls by double digits – the day before. She is looking to find new momentum in South Carolina against the surging campaign of Barack Obama and the gritty determination of John Edwards. The ascendancy of Mike Huckabee suddenly turned the electability issue on its head, overcoming the reservations of a large block of voters who liked the former Arkansas governor but had accepted the conventional media wisdom that he could not be elected. Iowa changed all that, and a definitive Huckabee victory here could propel him to the nomination.
That’s because after our Republican primary on January 19 comes the Florida primary on January 29. Rudy Giuliani, largely a non-factor in Iowa and New Hampshire, has bet the ranch on Florida, a dangerous strategy in a state where Huckabee is also showing real strength.
In a strange twist, the South Carolina primary for Democrats is January 26, a full week after the Republicans. Momentum from the early primaries gains unprecedented importance this year because February 5 looms as the most super of Super Tuesdays – as close to a national primary as we’ve ever had. On that day, electoral giants California, Illinois and New York go to the polls, along with Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah.
By the time they finish counting the votes, the identities of the November candidates for both parties should be apparent even if their delegate tallies fall short of the number needed to win the nomination. The shortened electoral calendar means this war of attrition will have taken its toll in record time. But the road to Super Tuesday – and ultimately the White House – runs through South Carolina. The Beat’s Palmetto Primary Preview starts with the Republicans.
Seven Old White Guys
After John McCain’s summer swoon, Fred Thompson’s late entry into the race last September fell flat. This fueled the notion that the contest for the GOP nomination had turned into a two-man race between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Ron Paul was (and is) still largely dismissed, and Tom Tancredo’s one-note anti-immigrant campaign fizzled despite his novel idea to fight Islamic terrorism by dropping a nuclear bomb on Mecca. Tancredo abandoned his presidential bid, and is reportedly eyeing a US Senate seat in Colorado sure to be hotly contested with Republican Wayne Allard not seeking reelection. Former House Armed Services Committee chair Duncan Hunter’s hawkish campaign never really caught on in a field of like-minded candidates determined not to be out-hawked by anyone – except for Ron Paul, a staunch opponent of overseas military incursions in general and the war in Iraq in particular.
But facing an electorate with widespread distrust for the incumbent president, his fellow GOP partisans have for the most part expressed little dissent with the outrages inflicted on the country over the past seven years. Their dogged commitment to continuing the upward redistribution of wealth and preserving the failed foreign and military policies of George W. Bush seems like a strange disconnect from the mood of the country. This impression was bolstered by irrefutable visual evidence at the many debates over the past 12 months or so - a stodgy row of privileged old white guys.
The principal exception was Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor who spent the past 11 years as governor of Arkansas. At 52, he is 20 years younger than elder statesmen Ron Paul and John McCain at 72 and 71 respectively - and it shows. In addition, he plays guitar and hangs out with the Rolling Stones, but nobody imagined a small-state governor – from Arkansas, no less - could ever be elected president.
Despite a resume and platform that dovetailed with the concerns of Christian evangelicals, Huckabee watched in dismay as prominent figures on the religious right went elsewhere. Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani despite the former mayor’s declared support for abortion and gay rights. Dr. Bob Jones III went for Mitt Romney, overlooking their long-held belief that Mormonism is a false religion. Above and beyond their stated principles, Smilin’ Pat and Doctor Bob want to back a winner and didn’t see how Huckabee could win.
But a funny thing happened to conventional wisdom on the campaign trail. Mike Huckabee started to click with ordinary citizens with a series of low-key debate performances that displayed his rhetorical gifts and deft sense of humor. But it went deeper than that, and his extension of Christian values beyond the usual pro-life and pro-family platform to embrace moral imperatives on hunger, health care and the environment stood in stark contrast to the economic royalists on the stage with him.
Also working in Huckabee’s favor is the palpable sense of betrayal felt by many Christian conservatives who were manipulated to vote against their economic self-interest by Karl Rove’s deceptive and divisive tactics. In the end, too many of them watched their own prospects diminish as soaring gas prices and ever-increasing medical and college costs were compounded by economic uncertainty, with many families being one job loss or catastrophic illness away from financial ruin. Somehow, blocking gay marriage didn’t seem quite so important anymore – not when compared to giving lavish tax breaks to US companies that send the jobs of their American workers overseas.
Week by week, Huckabee held his own as none of the other candidates managed to catch fire. Even as he continued to languish in the second tier with single-digit poll numbers, he kept working especially in Iowa. We’ve seen a lot of him in South Carolina as well, but it was in Iowa that he started to click. With no other candidate seizing the mantle of inevitability, Huckabee started to seem like a viable alternative. Slowly at first, his stock began to rise in Iowa. The news spread and he soon climbed to the top of GOP polls in the Hawkeye state. On primary night, he won with 34% of the vote, outpolling Mitt Romney by 9 points despite being outspent almost 20 to 1.
Even before his Iowa victory, the economic royalists who control the Republican Party struck back hard at Huckabee, led by Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Other media outlets piled on, with the usual pack mentality intensified even more because Huckabee’s surge was not manufactured by media hype from the top down but rather seemed to percolate upwards from the grassroots. What happens from here is not clear, but nobody is counting Mike Huckabee out anymore. The lesson from his campaign is the unmistakable power created when the Christian values message is wedded to some form of economic populism. Sometime, somewhere, a skilled politician will take that platform to the house - the White House. As unlikely as it seemed only a few short weeks ago, this could be the year and Mike Huckabee could be the man.
On another front, we have been reporting for the past six months or so that those writing the political obituary of John McCain were premature at the very least. Under constant lashing from right wing talk radio and immigration xenophobes, McCain’s poll numbers plummeted. Poor campaign work didn’t help, but they never quite managed to kill his campaign off. Like Frankenstein’s monster, McCain lurched back to life. He still faces a formidable series of obstacles, but by the end of the Republican Convention, John McCain could very well be the nominee.
This would be bad news for Democrats, because McCain’s proven attraction to independent voters might be the difference in a close election. David Broder in the Washington Post wrote that the ideal Republican ticket would be McCain-Huckabee. Don’t forget that in 2004 the John Kerry campaign flirted publicly – if not too seriously – with asking McCain to be the vice-presidential nominee on a bipartisan national unity ticket. Add to that his endorsement by Sen. Joe Lieberman – the Democratic V-P nominee in 2000 – and the potential for political heartburn for the eventual Democratic nominee becomes apparent. That’s because our elections are usually decided by voters in the political center. Assume the Republican and Democratic nominees each start with roughly 45% of total. That leaves a remaining bloc of 10% - independents, ticket splitters, thoughtful citizens, schizophrenics, handwringers, etc. McCain has always polled well among this disparate bunch and represents perhaps the GOP’s best hope if the 2008 election is close.
The Rasmussen Poll taken January 6 showed McCain with the support of 21% of South Carolina Republicans, trailing new front-runner Huckabee who has 28%. Despite lavish campaign spending here on radio and television, Mitt Romney is far behind in third place with 15%; Fred Thompson is stuck in fourth with 11%. This is bad news for the former Tennessee senator, eclipsed by Huckabee as the Southern candidate. The lawyer-politician-lobbyist turned television and film actor has not managed to find a campaign groove, and it could be over sooner rather than later if he doesn’t catch fire in the GOP primary here. As Thompson told CNN earlier this week, “It is all about South Carolina.”
Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani both have more campaign cash than hard-core supporters at this point, and the Republican race remains too muddled to completely count either out yet. Ron Paul has been consistently marginalized by the GOP establishment, and don’t be surprised if he bolts to party to mount an independent challenge. He has strong appeal to his core group that seems to have peaked at no more than 10% in most polls.
The betting now in some circles has the next president coming from the other side of the aisle. A look at the Democratic candidates reveals a unique set of assets and liabilities.
The Rainbow Coalition Lives
Compared to the conventional appearance of the lineup of Republican presidential candidates in 2008, the Democrats present a study in contrast. Sure, there is an ample supply of old white guys, but the ranks of Democratic presidential candidates also include a woman, an African-American and a Hispanic. Adding excitement to this visual display of diversity is the knowledge that one of these Democratic candidates would have to be considered at least a slight favorite to become the next president of the United States. Granted, Democrats everywhere are holding their collective breath, suffused with painful memories of their party’s ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The aforementioned war of attrition has already taken a toll on the Democratic side as well. Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd both dropped out of the race after their failure to attract much support in Iowa. These veteran public servants are both talented men whose presidential ambitions failed to connect with voters, but both have been mentioned as having greater roles to play in the republic – Biden as Secretary of State, Dodd as Majority Leader of the Senate if Harry Reid decides to step down, or maybe even if he doesn’t.
Former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska provided more comic relief than political persuasion in his debate performances, but his candidacy was never taken seriously by very many people – apparently including himself.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich is making a second presidential run this year, effectively duplicating his 2004 bid where he brought important issues to the table without ever coming close to generating the critical mass necessary to be a contender. As the leading progressive in the race, the former boy mayor of Cleveland has nothing for which to apologize, although he enraged some supporters with his signal before the Iowa caucuses that they should align themselves with Barack Obama if they did not have 15% at the caucus they attended. But Kucinich is absolutely right on many issues, even if his views are ahead of the majority of voters.
Gov. Bill Richardson gamely described his distant finish in Iowa by saying he’s made the Final Four, but his 2% total was so far behind the top three finishers that it effectively marginalized him out of the race. Richardson’s credentials in Congress, as Secretary of Energy and Ambassador to the United Nations make him a plausible vice-presidential choice, and in fact some observers suggested his “can we all get along” rhetoric was designed to schmooze himself into the role of Hillary’s running mate. But in Iowa, his supporters duplicated the actions of Kucinich backers who went over to Obama in precincts where they lacked the numbers to compete. Although the Richardson and Obama campaigns denied there was any deal, it couldn’t have made the Clinton campaign all warm and fuzzy. That might be a moot point, as Hillary’s prospects for winning the nomination are far from certain. (Note: Richardson dropped out of the race after New Hampshire, but declined to endorse another candidate.)
Realistically, the Democratic nominee will almost certainly come from among the top three candidates. John Edwards served one term in the US Senate, but his voting record there provides a sharp contrast with the hard-line populist rhetoric fueling his current bid. When he campaigned for the nomination and as John Kerry’s running mate in 2004, voters got a glimpse of the passion he brings to the need to bridge the gap between what he calls “the two Americas.” The son of a millworker from Seneca won the South Carolina primary in 2004, a campaign in which he had the support of most of the Democratic Party establishment in this state. This time around, that support has gone to Clinton and Obama for the most part, with the exception of a few die-hard Edwards loyalists. Nevertheless, Edwards’ message has real appeal and he has accurately described himself and Obama as the real change agents in this race. The way this thing is playing out, however, leaves Edwards essentially waiting in the wings for either Obama or Clinton to stumble. Absent such a major blunder from the top two, it’s hard to see how Edwards wins.
Sen. Hillary Clinton is a unique figure in American political history in a number of ways. With her former president husband, she has been in public life for over 30 years. For most of the past 20 years, they have been in the national spotlight. The challenge for Clinton in this campaign is not making voters aware of what she is all about, but taking that familiarity and aligning it with a forward-looking agenda for the future. As a former First Lady, she receives tight protection from the Secret Service that makes the kind of retail politics required in early primary states difficult at best. Add to that a certain shyness and Midwestern reserve that characterizes this former Goldwater girl and it is perhaps understandable that she has had difficulty in forging the sort of passionate following that transforms a campaign into a crusade.
Sen. Barack Obama rocketed onto the national stage in 2004, the same year he was elected to the US Senate from Illinois. His speech at the Democratic Convention that year was a smash hit, and the enthusiastic following he has enjoyed in this campaign might appear to some as mostly a cult of personality. But there is evidence that suggests the opposite is true. When Oprah Winfrey joined Obama and 30,000 of their closest friends for a rally at Williams-Brice Stadium last month, it was Obama and not megastar Oprah who clearly held the spotlight with a stirring call for change that transcended any cult of personality with the suggestion that not only is there a need for dramatic change in the United States, but that it is possible to make it happen this time around.
This powerful message was on display that afternoon. When Barack Obama hit the stage, it was obvious that he has ratcheted up his game a notch or two since his Greenville visit six months earlier. The calm, deliberate recitation of facts was still present, but it built to a stirring oratory that derived its power in equal parts from his clarion call for change and an increasingly effective delivery. That day, his words rang like a bell to the largest crowd at a political rally for any candidate this campaign season. Make no mistake – Barack Obama has the power to inspire, but it is his core message of change that is the raison d’etre for his campaign.
That is proving more persuasive than any perceived shortcomings on the part of Hillary Clinton or the other candidates. What has become increasingly apparent in the Democratic presidential race in recent weeks is the extent to which this change agenda with its mandatory focus on the future is eclipsing more traditional political considerations. When he walks onto the stage, Barack Obama is the physical personification of the change agenda. Then he begins to speak, and his call for an end to the politics of division strikes a powerful chord with an electorate that thirsts for change and hungers for a leader who really can be a uniter, not a divider.
In his victory speech in Iowa last week, Obama spoke of “a defining moment in history” in what more than one commentator described as a “goosebump moment.”
For all of her knowledge, experience and record of service to this country, Hillary Clinton is not battling just another candidate whom she can challenge on his record or his achievements. She is fighting powerful ideas that have triggered a tidal wave of emotion keyed to that defining moment in history.
In the end, the mechanics of the voting in the South Carolina Democratic Primary on January 26 will matter less than the underlying dynamic driving this campaign. The powerful allure of Obama’s words, again from his Iowa victory speech, succinctly presents the case that no amount of money or campaign manuevering can alter:
“We are one nation; we are one people - and our time for change has come.”
]]>
