Top

news

Stories

 

The Clinton Machine Will Not Go Easily Into the Night

The battle begins

Did longtime Clinton family bagman Terry McAuliffe nail it late Tuesday night just moments after the networks called New Hampshire for Hillary Clinton? “It was that humanizing moment yesterday,” a jubilant McAuliffe told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, referring to Hillary Clinton’s much-televised tearing up as she complained what an unrecognized burden it’s been for the last 35 years fighting for All Those Little People.

Is that what it has come to? A vulnerable Hillary weeping and a red-faced Hubby Bill angrily wagging his finger that all the talk in the media about Obama representing real change is but a “fairy tale”? Or maybe we should throw in Hillary dredging up Osama at the last minute? Or the dirty-tricks whispering campaign that Obama wasn’t really pro-choice? Or that his position on the same war that Hillary authorized was somehow hypocritical? Or the shameless union-financed campaign suggesting that Obama, who was fighting for unions while Hillary was litigating for power utilities, was anti-labor?

Or perhaps there are more mundane, more innocent explanations for Hillary’s having defied all the pollsters and pundits by staging one more New Hampshire Clinton comeback. Maybe it was simply the unusually balmy weather that allowed an elevated number of the elderly to trundle to the polls. Add those up, along with the disproportionate vote of unmarried women, and of the lesser-educated, who flocked to Hillary for Heaven-Knows-What-Reason.

None of this to say that there’s a trace of anything devious or underhanded in Clinton’s victory. Hillary won fair and square and against some very tough odds. Democrats who supported Obama — or Edwards — will have to face the nettlesome truth that it was, precisely, a plurality of other Democrats who chose her.

Less than a week before, it sure seemed that Clinton was doomed. When the high school and gymnasium doors opened across Iowa the previous Thursday evening, as the lines of new caucusers poured into the hallways and registration forms for Republicans switching parties started to run out, it felt as if the Clinton Era had finally, thankfully, come to a grinding, sudden halt.

But nothing comes easy. Even Hillary Clinton, in her own perverse and inadvertent way, said it in the final hours of the New Hampshire campaign. Chiding Obama for raising “false hopes” of change, she went on to credit LBJ, not Martin Luther King Jr., for the passage of landmark civil rights laws. “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Clinton told an interviewer. “The power of that dream became real in people’s lives because we had a president who said, ‘We’re going to do it,’ and actually got it done.”

The implication was obvious. Her history, however, was exactly backward. An IQ anywhere near room temperature is sufficient intellect to know that Johnson and the U.S. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act only because of fierce, relentless pressure from below. Only because so many were willing to be beaten, fire-hosed, jailed and, in some cases, firebombed was Jim Crow finally scrapped. No thanks to LBJ, but rather in spite of LBJ.

As delightful as the thought might be to some of us, it would have been a tad too easy to have smashed the Clinton machine with one simple blow struck in Des Moines. The combined votes for Barack Obama and John Edwards are undeniable symptoms of a nascent, generation-driven strain to break the current prevailing political paradigm.

Indeed, I found my crusty old self rather moved several times last week as I followed the Obama campaign through Iowa and heard him repeatedly challenge his audience to actively begin the transformation of American politics. As I thumb through my reporter’s notebook from Iowa, I see great wisdom in one of the more piercing passages from Obama’s stump speech. Quoting not LBJ, but rather MLK on what the latter called “the fierce urgency of now,” Obama flashed a wry smile as he stretched his lanky arms on the podium. “Some say Obama has great ideas and a good organization,” he said with a tinge of sarcasm. “They say he just hasn’t been in Washington long enough. He needs to be seasoned and stewed. We need to boil all that hope out of him.”

And then, citing the blood and sweat invested in the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, the defeat of fascism and the winning of civil rights, he added, “We’ve never had meaningful change in this country unless somebody, somewhere stood up to do something others said couldn’t be done.”

In the weeks ahead, fortunately, we face nothing so dramatic as Panzer divisions, or even fire hoses, but rather just a couple of moth-eaten political hucksters and their investors. No one has to die or even face down dogs and nightsticks. All they have to do is get off their duffs and get to the polls. And they’ll have to decide if, once again, they will be cowed into voting out of fear. Or choosing change. The fight is on.

 
  • i-spot-a-ranter 01/18/2008 11:37:00 PM

    gosh Susan, you sure do an "all-out hatchett" job on that KB. Way to distinguish yourself from Marc. kudos.

  • susan 01/17/2008 12:22:00 AM

    KB, you're not the best advocate for why Marc Cooper is NOT a liability at the USC School of Journalism. No one is looking to Marc for "a tell all guide on how to write a news story," but an all-out hatchett job is not appropriate. And no, his rantings aren't taking by all of us as a personal blog vs. part of the L A Weekly, since they're published with the other articles not separately referenced somewhere. As to "why people who disagree with this so-called 'liberal' paper continue to read it..." You mean, "liberal" papers should be given a total pass when it comes to any sort of accountability? And since Marc is bashing the Clintons, who are usually considered liberals -- certainly that's how the conservatives see them -- he's using this liberal paper to bash one liberal while propagandizing without substance or facts in favor or another. And then you opine that anyone who thinks Marc's biased, psychopathic obsession with hating the Clintons is worth commenting on, should just shut up and let him use this paper to rant. Boy even Rush Limbaugh and Imus couldn't top that one. Finally, you admit that like Marc, you either can't grasp or don't want to bother with logic, since you share his rabidly biased views and wish he injected more of them into his journalism classes to spice things up. -- Yes, I can see why you're just the kind of student and reader Marc wants.

  • KB 01/15/2008 2:25:00 AM

    As a former student of Marc's I resent any implication that he brings his political views into the classroom. This is a blog people not a tell all guide on how to write a news story. One thing I learned at Anneberg is that there are major differences between the two which none of you seem to understand. I also don't understand why people who disagree with this so-called "liberal" paper continue to read it. Good God, Marc is going to continue being Marc. If you dislike what he says spare your brain cells and stop reading his work, let alone take out precious time of your day to comment on his views. For the record, I've taken two courses with this man and he does not share his political views, ever. I also would have taken more of his classes if he was half as interesting in the classroom as he is here. I always knew there was a reason why I enjoyed him so.

  • jill 01/14/2008 9:45:00 AM

    Marc's concluding paragraph, calling the Clintons "a couple of moth-eaten political hucksters," and framing Hillary vs. Obama as the voters deciding if "they will be cowed into voting out of fear. Or choosing change," is so unbelievably biased that Obama's own hucksters would never be so bold and crass. Meanwhile, he can't quote a single thing of substance Obama says in favor of his great "change," except (the two paras above that) that Obama compared himself not only MLK, women's suffragists, the forces who defeated fascism, and abolitionists. As though Hillary and Bill were the forces who stood for oppression of women, black segregation and Nazism. For Marc to quote Obama's ludicrously self-righteous positioning of himself this way without question, is so devoid of even a semblance of critical skill let alone anything remotely resembling insightful analysis, that Marc should be removed from this story -- the hounding of the Clintons -- immediately. The first few commenters are right about him -- he uses this paper to wage a vitriolic campaign against the Clintons which borders on the psychologically challenged. He needs to be reeled in and replaced. Marc says the Clintons are beholden to "their investors." What investment does the Weekly have in this vendetta against the Clintons? If this were being done by a Conservative blog, you can be sure there would be allegations that some wealthy rightwinger like Rupert Murdoch were secretly controlling the purse strings. Considering Cooper allegedly teaches journalism at USC, the university's administration should be very concerned.

  • Pat 01/12/2008 7:26:00 PM

    Why do some writers continue the false story that Clinton was calling Obama's entire "dream" a fairy tale? He was talking about Iraq votes. Good Good, doesn't the LA Weekly have an editor?

  • Jim 01/11/2008 12:42:00 PM

    Regardless of what is true or not true of the Clintons, Obama is the real thing. For insight into his political views and expertise that you won't get from his speeches, see what he wrote at http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/30/102745/165/500/153069

  • chloe 01/11/2008 7:18:00 AM

    Moist eyes from Obama's boilerplate of phoney sounding, clumsily ransacked Civil-Rights era orations, Mr. Cooper? Ah, the quirks of andropause :-))

  • umarried voting elderly hag 01/11/2008 6:59:00 AM

    psst, Marc, you're a replicant. Writing for a corporate machine, in love with a photogenic first term junior senator recommended by a talk show host that has raised conscpicuous consumption to a zealous religion. Pure as the riven snow, not ambitious, just ask Geffen. Noone works within the system without a getting a bloody nose. Elitist.

  • Greg Wall 01/11/2008 3:23:00 AM

    Dan, I'm afraid you just noticed that the ocean is a little wet. Why major "progressive/alturnative" media outlets continue to print Cooper's swill is a mystery, but his stuff on the Clintons (and Al Gore for that matter) has always been unprofessional, to say the least, to the extreme.

  • dan 01/10/2008 7:27:00 PM

    Marc, every article I've read by you on Hilary teems with venom, and I begin to think your dislike of her is irrational, visceral. Is Barack so pure? Has he never "played the game"? Does he only have a positive side and not a negative one? More objective and thorough evaluation by you would be appreciated.

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy