By Dave Lindorff
The real message of the Iowa caucus yesterday was that the long-operative Clintonian/Democratic Leadership Council assumption that the independent or unaffiliated voter bloc is composed of conservative-leaning, dim-witted and easily manipulated people has got it all wrong.
In fact, in Iowa, where unaffiliated voters are free to participate in either a Democratic or Republican caucus, 41 percent of those people voted not for the conservative, tough-talking “centrist” Hillary Clinton. They voted instead for the black, nominally anti-war candidate, Barack Obama. Another significant percentage of independents went for another progressive-sounding candidate, John Edwards. Clinton only got an embarrassing 17 percent of the unaffiliated vote.
' The implications of this failure on her part are enormous when it comes to next November’s general election.
If Democratic voters in the upcoming primaries, especially in states like Pennsylvania, where independents are excluded from the voting, end up giving the nomination to Clinton, she will almost certainly end up forfeiting much of the independent vote, just as both Al Gore and John Kerry did in the last two presidential elections.
The reality is that many, if not a majority of unaffiliated voters are not at all conservative (or dim-witted). What they are is cynical about the current state of Tweedle-Dum/Tweedle Dee politics in America. They see both the Democratic and Republican parties as being of, by and for the rich and often they don’t even see the point in voting. (They are, in other words, in many ways more politically savvy than many registered Democratic voters, who refuse to acknowledge this reality!)
Because of the disastrous course of the last seven years under the Bush/Cheney administration, these independents are willing, as they showed in 2006, to give it a shot and vote for Democrats IF (and that word has to be capitalized and put in italics for emphasis) the Democrats will stand for something more than just Republicanism with frills. Exit polls in November 2006 showed that these voters (and a majority of Democratic voters) were looking for Democrats to stand up forcefully for the Constitution, and to put an end to the Iraq War.
They were double-crossed. The Democratic Congressional leadership, under the Clintonesque direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have done none of those things, choosing instead to simply pretend to be an opposition, while actually doing nothing on either front.
It’s an approach that Hillary Clinton clearly would continue to follow if she were somehow to manage to get herself elected to the presidency: a fawning obeisance to the wishes of corporate America and Wall Street, continued foreign wars and occupations, continued “tough talk” on crime with little or no effort to attack its causes (poverty, drugs, racism and hopelessness).
It’s also an approach that almost certainly would assure us another four to eight years of Republican control of the White House.
The truth is that those independent voters who turned out for Obama and Edwards are simply not going to vote for Hillary Clinton in November ’08. If it were to become a choice between Clinton and McCain, Clinton and Giuliani or Clinton and Huckabee, they will sit the election out—or even vote Republican. And she’s not going to get the other independents either—the ones who really are conservative leaning. If they vote at all, they’ll go Republican, offered the choice between Republican or Republican lite with a few liberal bells and whistles.
Fortunately, Iowa’s Democratic and independent voters have made it clear to the rest of the country that voting for Hillary Clinton is to commit Democratic Party suicide. Her whole campaign has been based upon the notion that she is the most “electable” candidate in the Democratic field—a notion that now stands exposed as a pathetic farce.
If Democratic primary voters in the rest of the country are paying attention, they will quickly send her packing back to New York, where she can continue her role, with colleague Chuck Schumer, of Wall Street lickspittle.
The rest of the Democrats seeking office or seeking re-election next fall should take heed. There is a frustrated, angry and very large bloc of people out there—independent voters—who are looking for progressive candidates who will not just talk in buzzwords, but who will act to restore some semblance of Constitutional government in America, and who will end the damned war in Iraq. If they’re lucky, those voters might giver them one more chance despite the wretched betrayal of November 2006.
___________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006, and now in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
| 2 comments |
|
Midwesterner, veteran of VietNam era naval service, I still feel an obligation to defend the Constitution against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." |
The chameleon candidate Hillary's post caucus comments, were only slightly delayed by the effort to round up enough of the dispirited volunteers who were drifting away so as to appear as a crowd on camera. When she wound up for the delivery though, I thought Barack Obama wrote her speech. She was suddenly the candidate for change, albeit with experience, of course. In that moment, she revealed everything that needs to be known about her. That she can turn on a dime to take advantage of a new selling point. That the selling points she articulates are in service to her ambition rather than anything she truly believes. That she dare not tell us what she does truly believe. by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 900 comments)
on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 1:22:54 PM
|
|
i am retired military veteran. i served over 25 years in the Unites States Army. i retired in 1983. i served in the vietnam war. a total of 27 months in that war. i also retired from Boeing aircraft. i am 68 years old. i live in texas. iwork out on my treadmill each day. i am married. i like politics. but i dont like what is going on in our government. we need a better government with politicans that answer to the people of america. after all this is our government. ( we the people) according to... |
Iowa Fxposes Dem's I have always voted democrat. because it was a party for the people. but it has changed in the last 50 years.( I'ts gone from good to bad. very bad.) people change and both parties remain the same. GREED IS WHAT CONTROLS BOTH PARTIES. I dont beleave it will change. WE IN AMERICA NEED A THIRD PARTY. SEPERATE FROM BOTH THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS. we need to pass laws by this third party to eliminate special interest groups in our government and corporate america and there inside groups that influnce our congress and senate. (I AM TALKING ABOUT THERE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT PASSES TO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.) if we the people are going to take back this MESS IN WASHINGTON we must act. and fast. our government is slipping away. i say vote all incumbents out and now. replace them with independents, and people who beleave in our United States Constitution. Come on America we can do it. it takes you and commen sense to understand that the government we have now is NOT WORKING. AND WILL NEVER WORK OUT THE WAY IT IS NOW. (vote all these people out we have in government now.) by
vincent passiatore (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 141 comments)
on Friday, January 4, 2008 at 11:09:40 PM
|
| 2 comments |




