Views » January 15, 2008

Pollsters and Puppets

By Joel Bleifuss

For Sen. Hillary Clinton, Iowa and New Hampshire are chapters of a story that began at 10 G Street in Washington, D.C.

In October 2002, the Bush White House was preparing to march the country off to another war. In Congress, the Democrats, on the whole, dithered.

Should they or should they not support the president’s Iraq war resolutions? Should they follow the road map prepared by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s Office of Special Plans, accept the rationale promoted by the Weekly Standard neocons and believe the “evidence” supplied by the prevaricating Judith Miller of the New York Times?

To the rescue came Democracy Corps, a nonprofit organization “dedicated to making the government of the United States more responsive to the American people.” (Translation: Making unprincipled politicians more responsive to the dubious science of political pollsters.) The group’s founders included Clintonistas James Carville and Stan Greenberg, as well as Robert Shrum, who would infamously go on to mismanage Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 campaign.

On Oct. 3, 2002, these number-crunchers warned Hill Democrats that their decision to support or oppose an Iraq war resolution would “take place in a setting where voters, by 10 points, [preferred] to vote for a member who supports a resolution to authorize force (50 to 40 percent).” The message was clear: Don’t lead, follow the polls and support Bush’s war.

Imagine what this Democratic presidential primary would look like had Clinton not pandered to public opinion (as misinterpreted by Democracy Corps), and had instead spoken out against Bush’s warmongering. Imagine if Clinton, like then-state senator Barack Obama, had addressed antiwar rallies.

While some pundits downplay the war’s role, it is clear Clinton’s hawkishness opened the door for opponents like the senator from Illinois.

If Clinton—and Kerry and former Sen.John Edwards and the 26 other Democratic Senators who endorsed Bush’s war—had led rather than followed, the national media would have been forced to view the war as a Republican adventure (rather than a bipartisan crusade for democracy and against weapons of mass destruction). If there had been a meaningful opposition in Washington, rather than a clique of fearful, poll-driven opportunists, it is possible that this entire Iraq catastrophe could have been averted.

Fast forward five years. Bill Clinton in Hanover, N.H., describes Obama’s opposition to the war was “the biggest fairytale I’ve ever seen.” Hillary Clinton portrays Obama as a waffler for claiming the antiwar mantle without moving actively to defund the war. Certainly, this Senate has failed to effectively challenge Bush’s Iraq policy, but every Democratic senator, Clinton included, shares responsibility for that failure.

Clinton claims that if she had better information in 2002—had she but known!—she would not have voted to go to war. Is ignorance an excuse for a woman as smart as Clinton? Did Rep. Dennis Kucinich have access to the special intelligence? As Congress took up the war resolutions, the press was full of reports that the White House claim that “you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam” was a crock of Bushit.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets. They didn’t need a degree from Yale Law School to understand that Clinton, et al. had voted to support a war that was being waged on false premises. In These Times and its sister publications had been reporting that fact for months—as had mainstream press outlets like the Knight Ridder newspapers.

These days, the future looks brighter for the Democratic Party. But if the Dems are going to be agents of “change,” the buzzword of the moment, they will need to exhibit real leadership rather than pander to opinion polls.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  “Clinton claims that if she had better information in 2002—had she but known!—she would not have voted to go to war.”

  Leadership is not about “The Decider” working from neat and clean information — it’s more a matter of playing the odds. Unfortunately most of our elected leaders are primarily weighing the odds of re-election and the factors concerning their own careers.

  The odds against a successful conversion of Iraq into a democratic society were apparent to anyone familiar with the history of the area. Nationhood was imposed on them by in the 1920s. First and foremost in their lives (except for a secular minority) is their religion.

  Governing by polls is now possible, but dangerous. What we get is decision by collective ignorance. Masses are what mobs are made of — emotions can be inflamed by information (often unconfirmed) and directed by charismatic speakers.

  The speed and volume of information transfer continues to improve, while our mental capacity is non-upgradeable.

  We almost always hear reports on “THE WAR” in terms of Iraq. McCain is the candidate who has always known and remembered that the war preceded our invasion of Iraq. He realized we had too few troops to do the job and a poorly defined mission. Leaving Iraq will NOT end the war regardless of what the poll numbers for/against may be.
  Better to try to improve info gathering and quality than to go with the flow of public perception. Better to exercise sound judgment than “successful” rallying of public (temporary) support.

  Hillary’s call for better info rings with a dull thud.

  Posted by whattheheck on Jan 17, 2008 at 3:40 PM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also featured The Next President’s Iran Dilemma
Tupperware and Tasers
Killer Credit

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Joel Bleifuss

• Block ’Em, Sock ’Em
  Across the country progressive groups are mobilizing to support legislative initiatives, but to… morePosted on July 9, 2009
• Buy Back Our Government
  Porn rentals, duck islands and moat-cleaning are among the frivolities British members of… morePosted on June 11, 2009
• A Specter is Haunting Dems
  Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) had every reason to free himself from the wing… morePosted on May 12, 2009
• Bailout Bandits
  In these days of "bank stablization plans" (bailouts for fat cats) and "overseas… morePosted on April 16, 2009
• Building Utopia
  A new documentary profiles the rise and fall of a Depression-era utopian experiment in the Bronx.Posted on April 13, 2009