Melissa Giaimo
Assistant Perspectives Editor
Hillary Clinton is the Democratic front-runner by a hair. Trailing close is Barack Obama — young, fresh and loaded for bear. But it is too early to tell which Democrat will win the nomination.
One way to predict who will win the nomination is to follow the money. Although Clinton has raised more funds, money is pouring in for Obama from the Democratic Party’s two largest funding sources: New York and Hollywood. Some stalwart Democratic contributors doubt Clinton can win, saying the Clinton name is tired.
Billionaire New York philanthropist George Soros donated the maximum campaign contribution, $2,300, to Obama hours after he announced his candidacy. Previously, Soros donated to both candidates.
David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg of DreamWorks film studio, key financial backers of former President Bill Clinton that Hillary hoped to have at her disposal, hosted a $2,300-a-ticket benefit for Obama at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles. On Tuesday, Geffen hosted a private dinner with Obama at his Malibu home for anyone who pledges to raise or donate $46,000 to Obama.
Many Democrats have remained loyal to Clinton, however. Bill convinced Steven Spielberg, colleague of Geffen and Katzenberg and also a big supporter of President Clinton, to host a major fund-raiser for his wife, according to a Feb. 11 Chicago Sun-Times article.
Clinton hopes to raise record-breaking amounts for a presidential election — at least $10 million in the first quarter and $60 million this year, according to a Feb. 7 Washington Post article.
But some Democrats still can’t decide. Malibu resident Barbra Streisand announced that she will be making the maximum campaign contribution to Clinton, Obama and Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina.
Although both are attracting donors, Clinton’s more moderate position might prove more attractive to funders and voters in days ahead. Despite many shared ideological views, Obama is more liberal than Clinton. According to the National Journal’s scale of liberal to conservative positions, Obama voted more liberal than 82.5 percent of the Senate. Clinton scored a 79.8.
In a time of corruption and political failing, one of Obama’s greatest strengths is that he is a new face. Americans are fed up with the lies and wishy-washy politics of those in Washington and want the war in Iraq over. They wish to regain their county’s dignity that President Bush snatched away in exchange for preemptive, unilateral war fought under the name of Sept. 11, to crush terrorism and spread the benefits of the democracy.
Many believe the junior senator from Illinois can repair the damage wrought by Bush and cronies and diminish the divide of blue versus red, leading the nation into a whole new shade — purple.
But how new is too new? Only in his second year as senator, Obama has much to learn. He has never been “tested” in a major election. Experts disagree whether he can survive what they predict will be the longest and most expensive, not to mention ugliest, presidential election in U.S. history. Some doubt if he can direct one of the world’s most powerful militaries. Obama says he can, but many voters are still not convinced.
Clinton, on the other hand, brings immense political experience and one of the most recognizable names in politics. But while her husband might offer fund-raising muscle and expert counsel, Clinton is a tired name. The nation already elected a Clinton to office twice. And the stigma of Bill’s personal failings burns on in America today.
In contrast to the newness of Obama, Clinton seems, well, old. There is nothing new for Americans to learn about Hillary Clinton. She represents to many a dying faction of American political culture — feminism. Many believe her polarized past may keep her from winning the White House including MSNBC “Hardball” host Chris Matthews who calls her “another Dukakis, this time in a dress.”
Like her Democratic colleague Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Clinton is known to cling to polls before announcing a position. She changes her mind as often as the public. While Clinton is certainly brilliant, she has yet to demonstrate true leadership by making decisions on her feet and standing by her convictions, such as the war in Iraq.
For instance, to appease Democratic voters, Clinton is now massaging her war in Iraq position.
“If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed,” Clinton wrote in an e-mail sent to her supporters in Nov. 2005.
Although Clinton says the war was a mistake, she has not formally recanted or apologized for her vote. She insists on lengthy, nuanced explanations, blaming misinformation. Her muddy position on Iraq contrasts with Obama’s clear stance that Iraq was a “tragic mistake,” as he told reporters in Iowa on Sun., Feb. 11, and with Edward’s public apology for his vote.
Everything can change though, including front-runners. It’s still almost a year before primaries. Carter, Clinton, Dukakis, Clinton and Kerry did not emerge as front-runners until the primaries.
The Democrats already won Congress: now they want the White House. They need a winning candidate, not necessarily the candidate with the most experience or best platform.
In an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, Rosa Brooks called the United States “the world’s last limping superpower.” Whoever voters believe can restore America’s image will win the nomination.
02-22-2007