The Chris Dodd campaign's only slightly veiled charge today that other candidates may bring out-of-state volunteers or employees to the caucuses sounds all too familiar to us caucus veterans.
"I'm sure we can all agree that the Iowa caucuses are unique and belong to the people of Iowa. As staff, we are fortunate to be a part of the process but should not interfere with the process itself," Julie Andreeff Jensen, Dodd's Iowa director said in a letter to other campaigns.
She said news reports about campaigns bringing in thousands of out-of-state supporters for this Saturday's Jefferson Jackson Dinner show the potential for similar efforts on caucus night.
Where have I heard that before?
Gephardt's campaign on Thursday (1/8/04) accused Dean of trying to cheat in the January 19 Iowa Caucuses. Gephardt Campaign Manager Steve Murphy said that Dean plans to "violate caucus rules and send out-of-state supporters to pose as Iowa residents" to vote on caucus day. Dean's campaign quickly responded by calling Murphy's comments "ridiculous" and a "sleazy tactic" intended to falsely hurt Dean's reputation.
The Dean kids in the orange hats very carefully stayed in the galleries on caucus night. Sometimes too carefully. In my precinct, I saw a staffer who was a native Iowa Citian, had been back in the state for months, and was living with her mother in the house she grew up in, pass on aligning on caucus night because she didn't want to face an accusation.
Making a charge without proof is one of the oldest tricks in the political book. I know an excellent Lyndon Johnson joke on this subject that's far too crude to repeat here, but the punchline is more or less: "let's make the SOB deny it."
It's sad to see this tactic come from a classy guy like Chris Dodd, but this is what happens at end game. Another page Dodd has taken from the Gephardt playbook: he's being the most direct in his attacks on the frontrunner.
In 2003, other contenders tussled with Dean on the issues, but a series of vaguely disclaimed ads traced back to Gephardt fundraisers more or less spelled out the whisper campaign: Dean's nuts. They backlashed terribly and killed Gephardt's chances, but they made their point. In effect, Dick Gephardt fell on his sword for the team.
By some accounts, he was almost rewarded with a vice presidential nomination -- the New York Post actually published it, Dewey Defeats Truman style -- until advisers convinced John Kerry that John Edwards brought more to the table.
In last week's debate, Edwards challenged Hillary Clinton aggressively on issues, and Barack Obama did the same to much less effect. But only Chris Dodd explicitly said:
"The fact of the matter is that my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, there are 50 percent of the American public that say they're not going to vote for her."
That statement enrages the walk on hot coals for Hillary constituency, and played into last week's "gender card" fight. You can argue the numbers themselves, and the Clinton campaign does often. But that electability question is on the minds of every Iowa Democrat at end game.
Question: If we grant that much of the passionate hatred of Hillary Clinton is sexist, couched in familiar code words like "strident" and "shrill," then is it also sexist to point out that such hatred exists? Or does that fall into the old "I'm Not A Bigot But" trap? We see that dynamic so often in internal Democratic Party debates: "I'm not against gay people, but my constituents, God bless `em, are narrowminded idiots and Some People might not vote for me anymore, so we can't be talking about this marriage stuff." You know the drill.
Is it also sexist to consider the Hillary Hater factor among the many other factors of choosing a candidate? And is it also sexist to note that gender is also pulling people toward her candidacy, to ask many people are motivated by Hillary Clinton herself, and how many are voting, rather, for Woman President? And is it fair to do a cost-benefit analysis of the tradeoff?
Chris Dodd says he sees that tradeoff as a losing combination. He has little choice and little to lose, and needs a high-risk, fourth down and long strategy. So Dodd, like Dick Gephardt, going to be the candidate who says what no one else will? Is Dodd taking one for the team?
No comments:
Post a Comment