"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."
The Washington Post forms a focus group of fourteen uncommitted party activists in an attempt to read the tea leaves in Iowa, after the weekend marking Clinton's first visit to the state. What are these activists looking for to transition from uncommitted to committed?
The qualifications for their support remind me of the scene from The Wizard of Oz in which the wizard demands that the motley crew assembled before him prove itself worthy by returning with the broomstick belonging to the Wicked Witch -- a task perceived as nearly impossible.
These Iowan Democrats make clear how support can be won. In the case of Hillary Clinton, the war issue looms large:
Most of those in the group strongly oppose the Iraq war, and Clinton's 2002 vote authorizing Bush to go to war rankles many. Several said they want to hear fuller explanations from her about why she voted the way she did and how she would try to end the war and bring the troops home.
For Barack Obama, the experience question continues to dog him:
But the group was decidedly split about whether he is ready to be president.
Joe Stutler, a systems analyst, said that "the C-word, 'charismatic' " describes his view of Obama but that the senator reminds him of a rock star coming off the release of a double-platinum album. "Is the first album the one and only?" he asked. "Is he a one-hit wonder? I can see him as vice president now."
The reaction to John Edwards is perhaps most cryptic:
Seen as personable, bright and compassionate by these activists, he nonetheless left them struggling to explain why they had doubts about him as a potential president.
"I really like Edwards," said Ann Bromley, a retired city worker. "I think he's intelligent and compassionate. I don't think he's electable, and I don't know why. Something is missing." Others nodded in agreement.
Quite a tall order for the candidates: Clinton must explain a vote that she essentially can't "explain", Obama should reassure with the experience he doesn't have, and it is incumbent on Edwards to supply a missing factor, which at present is intangible.
Of course, my perspective is that of a Maryland Democrat -- we never have the opportunity to put candidates on the hot seat, as it were. We just don't get to wield the cattle prods until the candidates reveal what they are actually trying to gloss over:
"Stop. Enough. You know perfectly well that a woman seen as weak on national defense is a deal-killer! Get over my vote!"
"Whatever, I've only been on the national stage since 2004. Don't you people understand what the audacity of hope means? Take a chance and put away those prods."
"Bored now. I've turned on the charm like what's-his-name, and I'm as electable as what's-her-name. You people are impossible to please. Here is my plank -- take it or leave it."
Of course, the money quote is probably right here:
But based on the reactions of the 14 Democrats, who gathered at Crosby's restaurant in downtown Cedar Rapids, it will take repeated visits to get that explanation across to activists
While this article quote is in the context of Clinton explaining her vote, it really applies to the process overall. To be an 'early state' caucus/primary activist means you have the power to hold these candidates in your thrall right up to the moment when votes are cast or deals are brokered. Does this mean the American public will get substantive responses to the basic issues raised? Probably not, but in the meantime, the contestants will be judged on their respective abilities to navigate, negotiate and cajole their way to offering up a reasonable fascimile of the requested broomstick.
And that, of course, will take many visits.