The voter continues to lead his interpreters astray. Two days ago it still seemed that he was choosing the 'different politics' espoused by John McCain and Barack Obama, a politics of the center, of blurred boundaries between parties.
COLUMBUS, Ohio - At an appearance before the Conservative Political Action Conference a month ago, Vice President Dick Cheney told a short anecdote that took place when he was a congressman running for a sixth term. He had been on Capitol Hill for 10 years, and he wanted another two; therefore he attended "the rallies, the barbeques and all the door-to-door work." His picture had already been in the paper and on television countless times. In his home state of Wyoming, at least, he was a familiar figure. Or so he thought.
During one of those campaign forays, Cheney came up to "an old cowboy with his back up against a tree, cowboy hat pulled down over his eyes." Cheney shook his hand: "Hi, I'm Dick Cheney, I'm running for Congress and I'd like your vote." The cowboy looked up and said: "You've got it - that fool we've got there now is no damn good."
Four days in Ohio, and it seems that that is what America now thinks of the person in Washington. As in the case of Cheney, in Ohio, too, the voters have proven a marvelous ability to forgo petty calculations and to send back to Washington the person who has already been there for 15 years.
Advertisement
If it's up to them, Hillary Clinton is the woman who is supposed to fix what is broken in the American capital. The person who failed in her attempt to pass a health insurance law is the one who will bring about a health insurance law. The person who supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the one who will get rid of it.
The voter continues to lead his interpreters astray. Two days ago it still seemed that he was choosing the "different politics" espoused by John McCain and Barack Obama, a politics of the center, of blurred boundaries between parties. On Tuesday it turned out that he had in effect changed his mind. Perhaps he would nevertheless prefer a female politician with a populist, aggressive message. Clinton was standing at the edge of the abyss, and like every politician in that situation, she turned to Judgment Day weapons: a negative campaign.
She is not averse to such methods, and apparently never has been. In the biography by Carl Bernstein, "A Woman in Charge," he wrote about an argument during Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992, after the story of his relationship with Gennifer Flowers was revealed. Hillary pushed for using damning material about affairs conducted by the president who was running against her husband, George Bush Sr. The candidate's aides worked hard to calm her down.
Obama, as far as we know, has no affairs that can be revealed. But he definitely does have connections with Tony Rezko, who is being tried for acts of corruption. This is the time of testing. Now we will find out whether he has the strength to withstand well-aimed blows and to stay on his feet.
Obama and Clinton are exhausted fighters, but yesterday an astonishing fact began to penetrate their awareness: The confrontation between them has not even reached the halfway point. Eight weeks have passed since the first vote in Iowa, and before them are seven more until the next significant vote, in Pennsylvania on April 22. As in Ohio, downtrodden, unemployed workers whose main concern is the economy will be voting in neighboring Pennsylvania. There and in West Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana as well. All these states are in the same neighborhood, and the voters there are concerned about an uncertain economic future.
Nevertheless, Clinton's most effective election broadcast dealt with security rather than the economy. Another reason to wonder about the voter's true motives: Did he or she decide this week against Obama because they trust Clinton to check the recession, or because they want her to be the one to pick up the "red phone" at 3 A.M.?
Clinton's people will say that both reasons are correct, but it's possible that a third reason is the key: In an exemplary maneuvering of the press and public opinion, Clinton has managed to crack Obama's Teflon coating at exactly the right moment. After all, that has been his main problem: a candidate who is a type of high-risk share.
That is true of the primaries and it will be true of the elections in November, if Obama manages to make it to the finish line. His concession speech two days ago was far more impressive than Clinton's tough victory speech. In that way he will be able to bring new constituencies, new states, into the Democratic Party.
Or he will crash, in a repeat edition of George McGovern in the 1972 elections. A sweeping and impressive mass movement, which at the moment of truth turned out to have one weakness: the steel worker from Pennsylvania, the waitress from Ohio, and the coal miner from West Virginia do not necessarily vote for movements.
Haaretz.com, the online edition of Haaretz Newspaper in Israel, offers real-time breaking news, opinions and analysis from Israel and the Middle East. Haaretz.com provides extensive and in-depth coverage of Israel, the Jewish World and the Middle East, including defense, diplomacy, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the peace process, Israeli politics, Jerusalem affairs, international relations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Israeli business world and Jewish life in Israel and the Diaspora.
