Race for the White House/ Between anger and moderation

WASHINGTON - Almost every American knows something about Hillary Clinton. Israelis also know her well. The Israel Factor - the panel of experts that has been tracking the U.S. presidential campaign for Haaretz - was asked this week to name the candidate they know the most about, and almost all chose Clinton. That does not mean there will be no surprises if she becomes president. But it is hard to think of another candidate who has been as much in the public eye as she has. Thus those who like her do so already, and it will evidently be hard to convince those who do not.

The candidate about which the Israel Factor's experts knew least is also the one most unknown to Americans: Republican Mike Huckabee.

Clinton is admired by many as smart and strong, but she is not particularly beloved. Those Democrats who will vote on Thursday for one of her main rivals, Barack Obama or John Edwards, are seeking a candidate who can speak to their hearts, and not just to their heads.

Obama and Edwards are now busy trying to sharpen the differences between them. Both know that there is no room for two "anti-Clintons." For one of them to have a real chance, the other must be wiped out. Therefore, they are cautiously trying to elbow each other aside. Obama is trying to rebut the argument that "the only way to bring about change is to be angry." Edwards, who attacks the establishment with angry zeal, counters that "you can't nice these people to death."

The question at the heart of these disparate approaches is whether the anger in the Democratic camp will be the dominant factor of the campaign, or whether the dominant emotion will be fatigue - with the strife, with the controversy, with the need to be angry at the Bush administration all the time.

Edwards is the angry candidate. Obama prefers conciliation. "We don't need more heat, we need more light," he said in Iowa this week.

Edwards was recently compared to a famous populist of the early 20th century, William Jennings Bryan. Bryan lost twice to William McKinley, but his campaigns remain etched in America's popular memory for the anti-establishment anger that lay behind them. Edwards, wrote commentator Stuart Rothenberg, is waging "a classic populist campaign that would have made William Jennings Bryan proud." Interestingly, another commentator compared Huckabee to Bryan.

So what do Democratic voters want, anger or moderation? Edwards knows that primary voters are generally dedicated and enthusiastic party activists, not the general public. And such activists are naturally angrier and less compromising. In the Democratic Party, many primary voters are also not exactly big fans of Israel - but as a counterweight, Jewish Democrats also tend to vote in the primaries in large numbers.

The Israel Factor's experts concluded this week that it would be better for Israel if Clinton won in Iowa. The worst would be if Edwards won. But in any event, there are signs that anger is giving way to a feeling that it is time to stop thinking about Bush and to start looking forward. That is one of the reasons for the feeling that there might be room for an independent or third-party candidate in the race - someone like current New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Click here for The Israel Factor