What to follow, the head or the heart?

Scot Lehigh | WEB EXCLUSIVE
January 6, 2008

New Hampshire was the place that Team Clinton hoped would sustain them even if they lost Iowa. Clinton has led here for months, has the support of many key players in the power structure, and benefits from a reservoir of good will for her husband.

Still, in the wake of Barack Obama's surprisingly strong victory in the Iowa caucuses, Clinton's advantage has crumbled -- and her campaign hasn't found an effective way to respond.

In Saturday night's debate, her attempts to draw a legitimate difference concerning the boldness of their respective healthcare plans misfired when Clinton overreached and tried to portray her chief rival as a man of many shifting positions. That brought a calm and dignified explanation from Obama, as well as a scolding from a forceful John Edwards, who styled himself as Obama's ally in pursuit of change -- and Clinton as the voice of the status quo.

All in all, it wasn't a night that helped her cause. With Obama outperforming her on the stump, she needed to demonstrate in no uncertain terms why she is the best choice for Democrats.

She didn't.

And that was probably her last best chance to reverse a tide of momentum flowing Obama's way.

Going negative on TV would have looked desperate -- and besides, with only five days separating Iowa and New Hampshire, there's simply no time for that kind of message to sink in.

Instead, the Clinton camp is stressing a two-pronged political argument.

Hillary and Bill are emphasizing that with the world situation dangerous and the national economy seemingly nosing toward recession, the country needs a candidate ready to be president from day one. The second part of their pitch: Given the ruthless efficiency of the Republican attack machine, the Democrats need a battle-tested candidate who is able to overcome anything that can be thrown at her.

That's an argument that says, vote your head and not your heart. It's one that voters here largely followed in 2004, with many switching from Dean to Kerry after the former's implosion in Iowa.

But this time around, it isn't working nearly as well with voters, and for good reasons: There are equally strong countervailing arguments.

Clinton is more experienced? Well, yes, but that doesn't mean she has better judgment. Witness Iraq.

Clinton is more battle-tested? Perhaps, but she is also more polarizing, which leads many to worry that she will never be able to persuade a majority to vote for her.

What's also clear is that in appraising Obama, voters aren't trying to decide if he has as much relevant experience as Clinton. Rather, they are judging whether he passes their minimum threshold for the presidency -- and increasingly they are concluding that he does, in no small part because of the serious, thoughtful way in which he conducts himself.

Clinton, meanwhile, lacks that excitement that's so important in the closing days of campaigns.

Clinton is treating the campaign as a job interview -- indeed, she called it exactly that in Penacook -- and trying to persuade voters that she has the best qualifications for the post.

Obama is treating it as a crusade -- and asking voters to join him in his quest for change.

Trust my experience and nominate me to make things better for you, she says.

Trust your heart and come with me and we'll change change our country together, he urges.

There's simply no comparison in the relative pull of those arguments.

Clinton's matter-of-fact approach had heads nodding in agreement and voters responding with occasional ovations on Saturday, as she answered questions for the better part of two hours, delving into the intricacies of policy in her effort to prove her readiness for the job. Still, though she was impressive in her knowledge, it was a bloodless performance, one devoid of the emotional energy that powers successful candidates in the final days.

Obama, by contrast, was far less specific about issues in his Friday speech to a large crowd at Concord High School.

But his soaring sense of shared cause, and his paean to hope and purpose, had the crowd cheering and clapping and stomping its feet in excitement.

She is playing precise but muted chamber music, something one listens appreciatively to.

He is offering Mozart's 39th, with uplifting crescendos that carry the audience away.

No one here will admit that they are influenced outright by Obama's Iowa victory, but a goodly portion of those I talked to were buzzing about the powerful speech he delivered after his caucus victory. For others, the Iowa victory has persuaded them that Obama could become a formidable general election candidate.

Bill Clinton made an effective appeal for his wife in Amherst on Saturday, and clearly scored points with a crowd of about 1,000. And yet, the former president is a double-edged sword. Even as he offers extravagant praise for his wife and her qualifications for the job, witnessing his witty and charismatic performance, one can't helped but be reminded yet again of just how plodding the candidate herself can be.

What to follow, the head or the heart?

Despite lingering nostalgia for the Clinton era, don't be surprised to see Granite State Democratic primary voters conclude that the time has come to embrace someone -- and something -- new and exciting.

Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@globe.com

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
1 2 more stories like this