| After I was one of five people at the Yearly Kos Convention in August to ask Hillary Clinton a question, Tim Redmond of the Bay Guardian followed up with a basic observation: why was my question news? "Why did it take a 29-year-old blogger from San Francisco," he asked, "to do what the high-paid, high-profile crackerjacks who are covering the presidential race for the mainstream media ought to be doing every day, as a matter of course?"
The answer is that Hillary generally avoids questions from the public - so that an unscripted question is suddenly news. If she can control what happens at all her public appearances, the Clinton juggernaut will chug along to the Democratic nomination. "These free-wheeling town hall meetings or press conferences," said the New York Times, "where curve balls can be common and mistakes more often can be made - now seem like a rarity as the Clinton campaign savors and protects her lead in national opinion polls."
In a Times review of Hillary's campaign schedule, the New York Senator attended two campaign rallies in Iowa and New Hampshire right after Labor Day, and later that week gave three scripted speeches and attended fundraisers. In the four weeks since, she has attended various candidate debates, appeared on TV talk shows, delivered various policy speeches, and has held more rallies, fundraisers and functions. Meanwhile, she hasn't had a full-blown news conference since January - and it's rare for anyone to ask her an off-the-cuff question.
But this weekend in Iowa, Randall Rolph of Nashua managed to pierce the Hillary campaign bubble. At a forum in New Hampton, he asked why she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution that calls the Iran Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist" group - a move that could give the Bush Administration a green light to start another pre-emptive war. Clinton disputed the premise of his question, and then accused Rolph of being a plant by saying "somebody obviously sent this to you." She later apologized, but the exchange was testy.
Rolph's question was important, and not just because few ordinary citizens get to ask Hillary a direct question. It exposed how much of a war hawk she really is - despite her anti-war rhetoric - and explained why those who fear another pre-emptive War should oppose her nomination. Despite an icy relationship with progressives that includes her 2002 vote for the War and her late support for withdrawal, Clinton now leads among voters who want us to out of Iraq immediately. Her skillful blurring of the issue - coupled with a cheerleading mainstream media - has allowed such well-deserved hostility to dissipate.
But as Jill Chapin recently wrote, Clinton's lead in the polls "says more about her supporters than it does about her. Americans say they are hungering for honesty and demanding clarity when selecting the next president, so it is downright fascinating how little they really care about Hillary's stance on just about everything." Recently, a local progressive activist told me that she supports Hillary because "she's the most likely to get us out of Iraq."
By avoiding direct questions from the public, Hillary has allowed Democrats to believe the best of her - that she really opposes the War and will get us out. But that's not what some of her campaign surrogates who've actually talked to her behind closed doors have said. Recently, retired Lt. General Claudia Kennedy campaigned for Hillary in New Hampshire - and stated a reason that would shock many progressives - the New York Senator supports War in Iraq.
"I don't oppose the war," said Kennedy, "and I have not ever heard (Clinton) say, 'I oppose the war.' I've heard her say that we need to begin withdrawal under a plan led by the military and defense secretary. I've heard her say we need to create a regional stabilizing group by allies, by leaders in the world and by all of the states that are bordering Iraq. That is a very important idea and the point of that group is to create incentive and assurances that will keep the neighboring countries from becoming involved and entering Iraq." But, said Kennedy, Hillary doesn't oppose the War.
Would progressive women who support Hillary feel the same if they heard that she doesn't oppose the War? Can Democrats who have forgiven Hillary for her 2002 vote for the Iraq War trust her - now that she's given George Bush an avenue to start War with Iran? If the Clinton campaign has their way, they probably won't even know about this before the primary votes are cast. Because the Clinton campaign knows that as long as she avoids unscripted forums, an unpleasant surprise is not expected to happen.
When Hillary kicked off her presidential campaign earlier this year, she promised to have a "conversation" with Americans about the future of this country. But from what we can tell based on her campaign schedule, Clinton thinks a conversation is supposed to be one-sided. And so far, most of the mainstream media is letting her get away with it.
Send feedback to paul@beyondchron.org |
