Tag: 2008 election
Analysis: In Iowa, Hillary Clinton Battles The Ghosts Of 2008

Analysis: In Iowa, Hillary Clinton Battles The Ghosts Of 2008

By John Heilemann, Bloomberg News (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton had just exited the Iowa State Fair grounds on Saturday when I ambled over to the fair’s fabled soapbox and started gabbing with Michelle Gadbois and Tracy Garland. A married couple, both bone-deep Democrats, they were at the soapbox to catch Bernie Sanders, who would shortly be uncorking the blistering jeremiad that constitutes his stump speech. But Gadbois and Garland were not, in fact, #feelthebern-ers. They were Hillary — with caveats. “I want to be for her,” Tracy said, “but only if she pulls her head out of her ass and gets real.”

The projection of realness — naturalism, authenticity, approachability — on Clinton’s part has been a central aim of her campaign from the start. And especially so in Iowa, where the perception of her as distant, bloodless, and imperious played no small part in her crushing third-place finish in the 2008 caucuses. Her swing through the Hawkeye State this past weekend was replete with efforts at being (or, at least, seeming) real (or, at least, real-ish). She toured the fair without a rope line, wading into the crowd. She chatted and took selfies with voters. She gnawed on a pork chop on a stick. She gawked at the famous butter cow and petted a real one. Asked by a reporter to name her biggest campaign error so far, she smiled and said, “I’m just havin’ a good time.”

The first question about these and other gambits designed to present Iowans with a more relatable, accessible Clinton is whether they will be enough — enough to satisfy votes who share Garland’s reservations, enough to win the caucuses this time.

The second question is how much victory in Iowa really matters for Clinton, considering her daunting lead nationally and long-run advantages over Bernie Sanders, her only plausible challenger as of now.

The second question is easier to answer, and the answer is: a lot. For the prohibitive Democratic front-runner to lose the first contest in the nomination fight would be a major political and psychic blow. Especially given Sanders’s hailing-from-the- state-next-door strength in New Hampshire, it would appreciably increase the odds of Clinton being beaten there, too — and that, in turn, could create an establishment panic over her viability, with unpredictable and unpleasant consequences. Clinton’s people see all this clearly and are determined not to let it happen. Their focus on Iowa is more intense than is generally understood; though none of them would call the state a must-win, they are, in effect, treating it that way.

On the face of it, Clinton would seem to have little to fear from Sanders in Iowa. According to the most recent public poll, from CNN/ORC, she holds a commanding 50 to 31 percent lead. But the Clinton team recalls all too well what the passage of time has clouded in the memories of others: that her defeat in Iowa eight years ago was hardly foreordained; that deep into the fall of 2007, she led Barack Obama by as many as 11 points; that it wasn’t fully clear until the night of the caucuses just how badly Clinton had been outmatched by Team Obama’s superior organization, message, and, well, candidate.

The Clinton sharpies in Brooklyn and Des Moines are laboring to rectify each of these failings, and, on some, have made demonstrable headway. Led by Matt Paul, a veteran Iowa operative and protege to former governor Tom Vilsack, the campaign’s state operation is light years ahead of where its antecedent was in August 2007 — with 10 field offices, 50-plus paid staff, and more on the way after Labor Day. In terms of structural rigor, coordination, and grassroots savvy, former Iowa senator and recent Clinton endorser Tom Harkin tells me the organization taking shape is as good as Obama’s in 2008.

Clinton herself has come a long way, too. Unlike in 2007, when her events in Iowa were long on bombast and utterly impersonal, she has gamely undertaken a more intimate kind of voter contact this time around. Her hour-long march through the fair was, in truth, not the best example of this: between the Secret Service, Iowa state troopers, and media horde surrounding her, the procession was a roiling, heaving mess. But Clinton’s itineraries on her frequent trips to Iowa this year have revolved around town hall meetings, small group events, roundtables, and private house parties. By all accounts, she has excelled in such settings.

She also seems to be finding her form on the stump sooner than many expected. Last Friday night in Clear Lake, Clinton took part alongside Sanders, Martin O’Malley, and Lincoln Chafee in a Democratic fundraising dinner known as the Iowa Wing Ding (at which 2,000 partisans consume roughly 10,000 chicken airfoils). The speech she delivered was impressive in two important ways. First, it was a built on a message chassis that could rumble deep into the fall and beyond: an aggressive blend of middle-class populism and pointed attacks on an array of Republican 2016ers (Trump, Bush, Rubio, Walker).

Second, it was fiery, confident, emotional, energizing — precisely none of which adjectives could have been applied to a single speech of Clinton’s in all of 2007.

But Clinton’s speech at the Wing Ding was important for another reason: It marked a sharp shift toward defiance, bordering on belligerence, in her political posture regarding her private e-mail system. With clear echoes of her famous imputation of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her and her husband, she cast the investigations of that system as “the same old partisan games we’ve seen so many times before.” She also extended a metaphorical middle finger at anyone with even vague concerns about her unusual e-mail practices: “You may have seen that I recently launched a Snapchat account. I love it, I love it! Those messages disappear all by themselves.”

With those words and her campaign’s handling of the e-mail imbroglio overall, Clinton and her team have provided a vivid — and, to a growing number of Democrats, disconcerting — reminder of what hasn’t changed since 2008 about Hillary and Hillaryland, despite myriad changes in plans and personnel around her. The tone-deafness. The bunker mentality. The tendency toward a state of denial.

How all of this might affect Clinton electorally is impossible to know just yet. Her operation in and approach to Iowa seem predicated on the notion that the email issue is purely a chattering-class distraction, irrelevant to the real lives of real people. Certainly Hillary appears to believe this is the case. “It’s not anything that people talk to me about as I travel around the country,” she said blithely on Saturday at a media availability at the fair. “It is never raised in my town halls. It is never raised in my other meetings with people.”

And, who knows, it might be true and she may be right. But what Democrats are willing to say to Clinton’s face is different from what they are willing to say in private — what is weighing on their minds. Tracy Garland raised the subject with me unbidden. So did countless other Democrats, elite and rank-and-file, at the fair. Their queasiness with Clinton, their restiveness, is one reason that a 73-year-old Socialist has found himself with a wider opening than even he could have imagined. It’s also why Garland and Gadbois, among many others, were full of curiosity about whether Joe Biden or Al Gore might really, truly be about to enter the race.

If you were Clinton, you’d be sorely tempted to write this talk off, too, as yet more idle chatter. Or you could see it for what it is: a flashing red warning sign — in Iowa and beyond.

(c)2015 Bloomberg News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Photo: U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at the Iowa Democratic Wing Ding dinner in Clear Lake, Iowa, United States, August 14, 2015. REUTERS/Jim Young

Too Late For The New, Improved Clinton And Perry?

Too Late For The New, Improved Clinton And Perry?

Amid a presidential field so large you’d need 10 fingers, 10 toes, and an extra hand or foot to count them, two contenders stand out as most improved. Hillary Clinton and Rick Perry are better candidates now than they were in their first tries for national office.

Unfortunately for them, their paths to the Oval Office are much more complicated now than they would have been, in 2008 for Clinton or 2012 for Perry. They squandered their best opportunities in those earlier races, and now have much steeper hills to climb.

Clinton’s challenges are in part a function of timing. It will be harder for a Democrat to win after two terms of a Democratic president than it would have been after two terms of Republican George W. Bush. But her most serious problems are self-inflicted, stemming from her secretive email system as Secretary of State and the intertwining of her work and donations to the Clinton Foundation.

The ethics questions are a clear threat. New Quinnipiac University polling finds Clinton in a perilous position in the crucial general-election swing states of Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia. “She has lost ground in the horserace and on key questions about her honesty and leadership,” assistant poll director Peter Brown said Wednesday in an analysis of the findings.

Clinton is viewed negatively in all three states and her “trustworthy” numbers are even further under water. Not surprisingly, she trails in hypothetical matchups with Republicans Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Scott Walker in all three states.

The irony for Clinton is that she has hit her stride on the campaign trail.

I was not the only political reporter who foresaw her fade after seeing her grapple with her vote for the Iraq War and listening to her at a major party dinner in 2007 in Des Moines, Iowa. She vowed repeatedly to “fight” and engaged in a cliché call-and-response refrain of “turn up the heat” (as in, “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”). Barack Obama, who had opposed the war from the outset, gave a watershed speech at that dinner in which he said the country was at a defining moment and voters would have to decide, “What’s next for America?”

Now, with a nearly unshakable grip on the 2016 nomination, Clinton is talking about people and issues that matter to her — her mother, her granddaughter, voting rights, immigration, race, wages, and inequality. She’s also cracking jokes that are actually funny — many of them about herself, her hair, and her age. “Finally a candidate whose hair gets more attention than mine,” she recently said of Donald Trump.

Obviously, the Quinnipiac polls are one set of polls at one moment in time, and even the best-known Republicans have yet to experience the full meat-grinder effect of a national campaign. But it does seem as though Clinton may finally have solved the likability conundrum at a moment when other troubles are catching up with her.

Perry, the former Texas governor, was still in office when he ran in 2012. But he ran in full Tea Party mode as a flamboyant outsider — attacking Washington in a book called Fed Up, flirting with the secession movement, calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” and declaring then-Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke’s monetary policy “treasonous.” He even defended U.S. Marines who in a video appeared to be urinating on dead Taliban fighters. Teenagers make “stupid mistakes,” Perry said on CNN.

And then of course there was his “oops” moment, when in the midst of a nationally televised debate he could only remember two of the three federal agencies he wanted to eliminate.

This year, Perry is better prepared and has taken on a different role as one of the adults in the room. At the National Press Club, he made strong arguments for why Republicans should go after the minority vote and why his policies in Texas have worked better than liberal policies for people at the lower end of the income scale. He has emphasized his veteran status — he was an Air Force pilot — and has emerged as the most forceful critic of Donald Trump in the GOP field. He was the first to call Trump unfit for the presidency and days ago he called for him to withdraw from the race.

The GOP field, however, is much larger and stronger than it was in 2012 and Perry, 65, is no longer seen as a top-tier candidate. He could still break out in a debate, assuming his polling is strong enough to get him onstage. But it won’t be easy to convince Republican voters he would be a better bet than Bush or the two next-generation hopefuls in their 40s, Rubio and Walker.

Clinton, 67, could still make history as the first female president. But assuming she is the Democratic nominee, she’ll be looking at a battle as tough as the one she lost to Obama in 2008.

Follow Jill Lawrence on Twitter @JillDLawrence. To find out more about Jill Lawrence and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Photo: iprimages via Flickr

Weekend Reader: ‘The Age Of Evangelicalism: America’s Born-Again Years’

Weekend Reader: ‘The Age Of Evangelicalism: America’s Born-Again Years’

The dramatic influence the Christian right exerts over the Republican Party has been well documented — but Democrats rely on religious voters as well. In his new book, The Age of Evangelicalism: America’s Born-Again Years, Steven P. Miller explores the bipartisan political impact of the evangelical movement over the past four decades. Miller, a professor at Webster University and Washington University, explains how evangelicals have at times dominated American politics, culminating with the religious right’s political rise and fall during the George W. Bush administration.

In the excerpt below, Miller examines how then-Senator Barack Obama used conservative Christians’ waning influence to promote a more progressive brand of faith-based politics during his 2008 campaign. You can purchase the book here.

Postmortems for the Christian Right abounded well before George W. Bush left office with a Gallup approval rating of around 34 percent. In its pioneering poll of 1976, Gallup had calculated the number of born-again Christians as a similar percentage of the American populace. That number had risen slightly by 2011, when George Gallup Jr. passed away. Many other pollsters since had followed the lead of the original evangelical number cruncher. The resulting statistics showed a striking, seemingly countervailing trend: The number of persons without a stated religious affiliation grew sharply in those same decades. In a landmark 2010 study, two leading social scientists cited a connection between “the rise of the nones” and “the visibility of the Religious Right in the public media.” The two trend lines were likely to cross, and the long denouement of the Bush administration pushed evangelical watchers to take stock. “The era of the religious Right is over,” announced journalist E. J. Dionne in 2008. To progressive evangelicals, “a seismic shift” was under way, one that would soon reveal just how exceptional a moment the Christian Right’s rise and fall had been. Evangelicalism had a center, and it—not the aging lions of the Christian Right—would hold. The new commentary reflected the extent to which evangelicalism had become the public face of Christianity itself. Newsweek editor Jon Meacham announced “the end of Christian America,” a demographic shift that the hyperevangelical Bush years had done much to conceal.

The rapid ascension of Barack Obama only seemed to bolster these arguments. Obama and his fellow Democrats ultimately benefited from the excesses of the Christian Right and a Republican Party that seemed bound to do its bidding. Still, no Democratic candidate with national ambitions could dream of running in 2008 as an atheist or even as an agnostic. Obama was unusually well positioned to promote a progressive brand of faith-based politics. The prominence of the evangelical left during the Obama campaign altered the terms of evangelical influence on American politics, setting the stage for an overall decline in sway.

Obama was not an evangelical in the sense that most Americans understood the term. The rising politician’s religious background was no less variegated than his racial and ethnic identity. His Kansan mother came from a nominally Christian background. She was, in his words, “an agonistic,” a seeker appreciative of all faiths. His absentee Kenyan father was raised as a Muslim but became “a confirmed atheist.” When, as a young adult, Obama negotiated the burdens and opportunities of his own identity, he took comfort in a black church tradition that to him symbolized the triumph of the Civil Rights Movement. He occasionally visited Harlem’s famous Abyssinian Baptist Church while an undergraduate at Columbia University during the early 1980s. Obama became, as he later described himself, “a Christian by choice.” While working as a community organizer in Chicago, he started attending Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Trinity was a mostly black congregation affiliated with a liberal, largely white denomination. Obama joined the church as a baptized convert. In his best-selling autobiography, Dreams from My Father, the discovery of Trinity forms the emotional climax of the section on his adopted city of Chicago. Trinity stood at the fault line of the liberal and black Protestant communities, two core Democratic constituencies. So did Obama. As a mature politician, he would move gracefully (but not unconsciously) between the measured tone associated with the former and the uplifting cadence associated with the latter.

Buy From Amazon.com

Obama’s national coming out came in 2004, when, as a Senate candidate, he delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. His personal story was his deepest asset; it was the American Dream, writ progressive. But he spoke as someone who was as comfortable with his religious faith as he was with his political liberalism. “We worship an awesome God in the Blue States,” Obama stated in an oft-quoted closing passage, “and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States.” He spoke of the “audacity of hope,” a phrase he borrowed from a Jeremiah Wright sermon and one that soon became Obama’s own trademark. Yet in other ways his liberal vision represented an effort to make hope more reasonable. Religious and secular folks should be able to get along, Obama averred. In an overwhelmingly religious nation, he knew, secularists would have to bear the burden first. “Over the long haul,” Obama told a television news network in 2006, “I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people, and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy. . . . Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public sphere.”

Candidate Obama was not about to concede religious voters to the Republicans. Moreover, faith-based appeals were a way of demonstrating his desire to transcend partisanship. Joshua DuBois, a black Pentecostal pastor, headed religious outreach during the campaign. The Obama campaign titled a late 2007 tour of the important primary state of South Carolina “40 Days of Faith and Family,” a narrowcasted riff on the structure of Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Life. Obama’s language of hope had religious connotations that resonated with progressive Christians. “Hope” was a favorite word of Brian McLaren.

Obama saw progressive and moderate evangelicals as important symbolic allies. His ties to Jim Wallis dated back to the late 1990s, when Obama was a young, ambitious state senator. The two shared a frustration with the polarized discourse of left and right, remembered Wallis, whom Obama thanked in the acknowledgments of his 2006 campaign book, The Audacity of Hope. As that book revealed, Obama had internalized the decades-old narrative of mainline Protestant slippage and evangelical ascent. Obama’s speech at the Call to Renewal conference was a crucial moment in his outreach to progressive evangelicals and, through them, to the broader religious left. Wallis called it “perhaps the most important speech on the subject of religion and public life” since John F. Kennedy addressed skeptical Southern Baptist leaders in 1960. Obama echoed themes he would soon highlight in the faith chapter of The Audacity of Hope. Tellingly, Obama had asked Rick Warren to review the section. The likely presidential candidate knew well Warren’s symbolic significance. Later in 2006, the Illinois senator appeared at Warren’s World AIDS Day summit. Also on stage was his Senate colleague, Sam Brownback, a strong political conservative and recent evangelical convert to Catholicism. The two had shared an audience before—at a gathering of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People—as Brownback noted to the Saddleback crowd. He then turned to Obama and quipped, “Welcome to my house.” The Kansan offered the awkward line as a good-natured joke, and the crowd responded in kind. Obama played along, as well, while seizing the moment to make a point. “There is one thing I’ve got to say, Sam: This is my house, too. This is God’s house,” he retorted, to another round of laughter.

To be sure, the desire for a rapprochement with values voters was not unique to Obama. Heading toward 2008, all three Democratic front-runners (Obama, Hillary Clinton, and former North Carolina senator John Edwards) spoke regularly about their religiosity. In 2007, Sojourners hosted and CNN broadcasted a forum with the Democratic contenders. Edwards, Clinton, and Obama discussed their faith with ease, employing autobiographical flourishes to steer around the divisive issues associated with the culture wars. Obama was the only candidate who made a specific reference to evangelicalism, citing its belief in “second chances” as “an area where I think we can get past the left and right divide.” He also took advantage of his ties to Jim Wallis to wish the host a happy birthday.

If you enjoyed this excerpt, purchase the full book here.

Excerpted The Age of Evangelicalism: America’s Born-Again Years, by Steven P. Miller, with permission from Oxford University Press USA.  Copyright © Oxford University Press 2014.

Want more updates on great books? Sign up for our daily email newsletter here! 

High-Tech Firms Focus On Energy Efficiency To Confront Climate Change

High-Tech Firms Focus On Energy Efficiency To Confront Climate Change

By Evan Halper, Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — As President Barack Obama pushes ahead on a strategy for confronting climate change that relies heavily on energy efficiency, some Americans may see flashbacks of Jimmy Carter trying to persuade them to wear an extra sweater and turn down the thermostat.

Silicon Valley sees dollar signs.

Long overshadowed by wind turbines, solar panels and other fashionable machines of renewable power, energy efficiency has lately become a hot pursuit for tech entrepreneurs, big-data enthusiasts and Wall Street speculators.

They have leveraged multi-billion-dollar programs in several states, led by California and Massachusetts, to cultivate a booming industry. This onetime realm of scolds, do-gooders and bureaucrats has become the stuff of TED talks, IPOs and spirited privacy debates.

“This is not about extra sweaters anymore,” said Jon Wellinghoff, a San Francisco lawyer who formerly chaired the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Power companies are tapping databases to profile intensely the energy use of their customers, the way that firms like Target track customer product choices. Google Inc. spent $3.2 billion this year to buy Nest Labs, a company that makes thermostats that resemble iPhones and are designed to intuit the needs of their owners. Energy regulators are providing seed capital to startups building such things as waterless laundry machines.

“There was this notion that energy efficiency would never be sexy, never be something people wanted,” said Ben Bixby, director of energy products at Nest, which has attracted employees from Apple Inc., Google and Tesla Motors Inc. to its base in Palo Alto, California.

“Nest has built this object of desire,” he said.

On hot days, Nest’s technology enables Southern California Edison to precool the homes of customers before the evening rush, helping the utility avoid the need to fire up extra power plants and netting cash rebates for homeowners.

Spending on efficiency technologies and programs soared to $250 billion worldwide last year, according to the International Energy Agency. The agency projects that amount will more than double by 2035.

U.S. power companies have tripled their investment in efficiency programs — funded mainly through ratepayer fees — since 2006, with California spending the most per customer.

Now the Obama administration has made energy efficiency a cornerstone of its plan to substantially cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The plan, released in May by the Environmental Protection Agency, pushes states to boost efficiency by business and residential power users 1.5 percent each year.

“We are very excited about the EPA proposal,” said Richard Caperton, director of national policy at OPower, a data-mining firm that nudges homeowners to make better energy choices by alerting them when their neighbors are being more efficient. “We think it opens up more opportunities.”

Not long ago, OPower was a small pilot project partnered with the power company in Sacramento, California. Now it does business with 90 utilities and has gone public.

All the mining of data involved in such high-tech efficiency efforts has some privacy advocates concerned.

In California, utilities are required to report when consumer data is being shared with someone other than the customer and vendors. Records show that last year immigration authorities, drug enforcement agents and state tax officials issued more than 1,110 subpoenas for records that track energy use of customers in the San Diego area as frequently as every 15 minutes.

Emerging privacy issues will be a focus of a fall conference sponsored by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

“This is a big deal,” Associate Director Neal Elliott said. “But it is not a big deal unique to energy.”

Those behind the start-ups said data already collected by retailers and social media firms create a much bigger potential intrusion. They express confidence that consumers are more likely to be charmed by their innovations than panicked.

So far, most of the efficiency focus has been devoted to what one innovator in the field, Swap Shah, chief executive of FirstFuel in Boston, calls “elephant hunting.” Utilities seek out their biggest clients, a small group of corporations in energy-intensive industries, audit their operations exhaustively and work with them to cut use. Each audit requires a small army of staff, Shah said.

FirstFuel goes after millions of other commercial customers that don’t get the utilities’ attention. It mines the 36,000 data points of consumption that a modern smart meter generates for a building each year and checks it against troves of other data, such as weather histories and images of the building pulled from Google Maps.

The result is a deep energy-use profile that reveals specific areas of waste, including lights left on all night, air conditioning running when workers are not in the building and poorly insulated windows. The average customer can use the report to cut consumption more than 18 percent, FirstFuel estimates. No auditors need ever set foot on the property.

Photo via Wikimedia