On the ground here in Iowa, all of us involved in the campaigns of one candidate or another are holding our collective breaths hoping one of our competitors screws something up enough to swing the vote substantially one way or another.
The HRC campaign may have just turned into its own torpedo. Ever heard the phrase "don't bite the hand that feeds you?" Today it needs to be changed to, "never alienate the people that vote for you."
More after the thin orange line...
Hillary Clinton has arguably had a few moderate-to-major episodes that still haven't seemed to affect her poll numbers significantly one way or another here in my home state. From the Iowa county chair forwarding emails questioning Barack Obama's religion, to Bill Shaheen talking up Barack Obama's teenage drug experimentation, from then-newly minted endorser Bob Kerrey's "complimenting" Barack Obama's middle name and implying he attended a secular 'madrassa' (which, by the way, was debunked by CNN way back in January,) to Bill Clinton claiming he was against the war from the beginning, it seems Hillary's surrogate campaigners are tripping over themselves to tarnish her campaign.
And now comes this little gem from Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland stating implicly that, not only is Iowa not deserving of its first-in-the-nation status in the primary nominating contest, but that the entire process is "hugely undemocratic."
Words nearly escape me at this point, folks. With 4 days left to go before the Iowa Caucuses, the Hillary campaign has let another loose-lipped endorser shove her campaign back into the negative spotlight.
From the Columbus Dispatch:
DES MOINES, Iowa—Gov. Ted Strickland's viewpoint that Iowa is the wrong place to begin the presidential nominating process caused some angst today in the campaign of Hillary Clinton and drew the ire of some voters here.
[--snip--]
In an interview with The Dispatch last week, Strickland said the Iowa caucuses make "no sense." He called the GOP and Democratic caucuses "hugely undemocratic," because the process "excludes so many people." Anyone who happens to be working or is sick or too old to get out for a few hours Thursday night won't be able to participate, Strickland said.
What the hell was he thinking?
And, of course, there's the (now very familiar) distancing of the HRC campaign from the remarks:
The Clinton campaign today sought some distance from the governor's comments.
"Sen. Clinton believes that Iowa and New Hampshire play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and that process should be protected," spokesman Issac Baker said. "We're proud to have Gov. Strickland's support, but on this issue they disagree."
As near as I can tell, the local papers/TV stations have not yet picked up this story, which may be HRC's only saving grace at this point. I've searched the Des Moines Register, Cedar Rapids Gazette, Iowa City Press-Citizen, and the Quad City Times, and I couldn't find a mention of this anywhere.
I'm not the only one seeing the pattern here, am I? The HRC campaign usually does it something like this
- Issue inflammatory remarks
- Apologize
- Resign (maybe)
- Refuse to comment further
- Rinse, lather, repeat
Personally, I'm an Obama supporter with Edwards as my firm second choice, Biden as my 3rd, and until now, Clinton was 4th. I've now firmly placed her behind Gravel. I wonder if he'd have a heart attack if he got a delegate in the caucuses?
You know what seriously pisses me off, though? If she somehow makes it to the convention and becomes our nominee, I'll still vote for her in the general election. And I hate that there's no other viable option. Why? Because I can't imagine living in this country if the Repuglicans have another 4 - 8 years.
Seriously, though, Obama and Edwards supporters...is this the gaffe we've been waiting for?