by Jim Tankersley
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. – "Let's talk politics for a minute," the guest speaker told Larry Sabato's American Politics 101 class this afternoon at the University of Virginia. Actually, she went 75 minutes – and the crowd was more than happy to indulge.
Several hundred students waited up to an hour in near-freezing temperatures to pepper Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) with questions on her presidential campaign and her policy fine print. It was the third event on a four-stop day for the co-Democratic frontrunner, who started her morning at a roundtable in Washington and continued at a tour of a hybrid car plant in Maryland – all in advance of tomorrow's "Potomac Primary" that includes the nation's capital and its sandwich states.
The crowd at this, the university Thomas Jefferson founded, was anything but a typical campaign rally. It was a cross-section of politics students, with equal parts seeming to support Clinton and rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), and more than a few Republicans thrown in for good measure.
Clinton sat in a leather chair onstage next to Sabato, the oft-quoted political guru whose past class guests have included Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan. Her tone was soft and conversational, at times academic and occasionally dipping into Jeffersonian references.
She never swiped at Obama by name. But she followed her "let's talk politics" line with an extended riff on why she would be better positioned to beat Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in November, including a claim that she can cross "the commander-in-chief threshold" in a general election – and an implication, perhaps, that Obama cannot.
Republicans, Clinton said, will not give up the White House with a fight despite what she called the failures of the Bush administration. ("I wish they would," she added. "It would be the polite thing to do.") She said the Democratic nominee would need to contend with the full force of a GOP attack "machine," which she said she has survived already. "There is very little, if any, new information about me," she said, adding later: "that's a huge advantage for me."
She discounted many of the states Obama has carried in this primary season – such as North Dakota, Alaska, Nebraska and Idaho – as unwinnable for a Democrat in a general election. She said she won the states that matter most for a Democratic victory, including Arizona, Michigan and Florida. (She didn't mention that Obama did not contest Michigan or Florida, or that he carried the swing states of Minnesota and Missouri.)
And Clinton said her base of support is stronger for a general election, including women, Latinos and "people making less than $50,000 a year who need a president."
Her comments expanded on a memo the Clinton campaign released earlier today from strategist Mark Penn, who contended that Clinton – and not Obama - would beat McCain, a Vietnam war hero, on national security. Penn also said that voters' perceptions of Clinton are fixed, but that Obama was vulnerable to attacks that would erode his support. When the attacks come, he said, Obama's coalition "may even crumble."
Sabato's students had more on their minds than electability. They asked about the pros and cons of biofuels, the effects of the Bush tax cuts and her favorite Republican. Someone asked whom she considered her greatest political influence; her winding answer ended with a story about Nelson Mandela bringing three of his former prison guards to his inauguration as president of South Africa, a gesture that Clinton said taught her "You have to give up whatever hate you have. You have to forgive."
A student from the Philippines asked whether Clinton believed she had risen to her place in American politics because of – or in spite of – her gender. "I don't know how to answer that," Clinton replied. "It's probably a little of both."
Asked about making college more affordable, Clinton lamented the increased difficulty for middle-class families to pay for school and touted her plan to cut costs. The candidate, who last month loaned her campaign $5 million of her own money, also said she empathized with families struggling with tuition costs: "Families like mine," she said, "we'll scrape it together and send kids to college."
The crowd applauded her warmly but split on its support at the polls. Jackie Gascoigne, a freshman from New Jersey, said she'd already voted for Obama - "I'm just ready for something new" – while her friend Carrie Bauer, a freshman from Alexandria, Va., supports Clinton. "I'm pretty impressed with the position she has in politics," Bauer said. "For a woman to get there, it's pretty amazing."
Crinstina Kesler, a 29-year-old research assistant in microbiology who just completed her doctorate, entered undecided but left leaning Clinton. She said she had seen Obama last fall in person. "I heard a lot of principles from him – which I loved; I was clapping – but with her, I heard details," she said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We'll be hosting a live chat Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2008 at 12:30 pm ET on Election 2008. Send your questions here and we'll try to answer as many as time allows.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Most exit polls show that Hillary is seen as the one with being best at being ready to be commander in chief just like exit polls show that more voters are with her on health care and the economy. The problem is more people care about "change" and "hope" and not the issues and those people are significantly with Obama.
Posted by: Eric | February 11, 2008 6:19 PM
A "commander-in-chief test"? That's a good idea. If there had been a "commander-in-chief test", I doubt we'd have had to suffer with Dubya at the helm for the last seven years. He was never much for taking tests.
I'm sure Hillary would pass, but I think Barack would ace it.
Posted by: Tom O | February 11, 2008 7:22 PM
I'm a Democrat and I sure hope the Obama train runs out of steam before August.
There are a lot of shiny happy people following Obama around and not caring whether he's qualified.
However, there are still millions and millions of pragmatic, skeptical, and patriotic Americans who cannot be bamboozled by pop glitz. If Obama gets the nomination he's in for a rude awakening running against John McCain.
Obama is not Google, he's vaporware. He should prove his offerings with some actual accomplishments, something that takes more than six months of work, and then come back and try again - though many will by then be sick of the overwrought parallelism and his grandiose obsession with his own historic importance.
Posted by: Chris Corbell | February 11, 2008 7:56 PM
Seems to me ALL the Democratic candidates would be wise to back away from the loaded cannon of 'who's best equipped to beat McCain'--read Frank Rich's article from yesterday. And then give a look-see at Greg Palast's rewritten last chapter of his updated Armed Madhouse. Dems have a LOT of organizing to do to RESTEAL the election from a very well-planned effort to subvert the poling process.
Posted by: Lisa Barr | February 11, 2008 8:05 PM
She mentions that she won the important states like CA and NY needed for the general election, but overlooks the fact that *any* Democratic candidate could take those states in a general election. She makes a lot of arguments that sound good on the surface, but are pretty shallow when you look a little deeper. Obama's healthcare plan is better and more realistically doable than Hillary's. Hillary also spouts just as much idealistic rhetoric as Obama, only she just isn't as inspiring when she does. She also puts a lot more spin in her arguments. Obama has plenty of substance, just go to his website. Finally, Hillary's argument about 35 years of experience is nonsense. Obama actually has *more* experience holding an elected office than Hillary, so don't be blinded by all her spin.
Posted by: BigDave | February 11, 2008 8:34 PM
I can sum up Hillary and Obama in two words each: Hillary is a polished politician. Obama is a polished person. Those of you who fail to understand Hillary's shrewd, calculated plan to appear at the university, fail to appreciate the difference.
Posted by: lori | February 11, 2008 8:42 PM
For someone with absolutely no military experience, and whose foreign affairs experience is even questionable, how exactly does she pass "The Commander in Chief" test? She only needs to look back at her husband's regin and the lack of respect he had by the military, to see what she could expect if by some miracle she ever gets to that position. Her first problem would be retention as many of today's military leaders will retire before going down that Clinton path again!
Posted by: Keith Roche | February 11, 2008 9:27 PM
Obama has released his financial records. Hillary will not. What does that tell you?
What does this tell you?
Bill Clinton has been cozying up to a third world ruthless dictator and doing him favors to help his buddy secure a nuclear deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?ex=1359435600&en=23a4d96223965ebf&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Posted by: Walter | February 11, 2008 10:42 PM
Proximity to power does not make you powerful. Reading Cliff Notes does not make you literate. Memorizing statics does not make you detailed. 35 years of activity does not necessarily translate to "experience." Because you say something aloud in the presence of people, that does not make the something you said true. Sadly there are people who have yet to grasp this concept and cannot discern the difference between fact and fiction.
Hillary Clinton is where she is because solely because she is Mrs. Bill Clinton. The absurdity of her campaign is more obvious if you substitute any other presidential spouse in her role. Fortunately, as her campaign unravels before us, the real "truth" is exposed: Hillary is patently unqualified to be in command of anything other than her own faculties. Like her husband before her, her penchant to play fast and loose with facts, revise, invent, circumlocute, reposition, triangulate, deny, subvert, deflect, (and well, I've run out of other ways to say it) and lie, about the most trivial of matters, impeaches her veracity on the most important.
Barack Obama is simply a better choice. He is authentic, transparent, honest, unifying, intelligent and more.
Posted by: Jade7243 | February 11, 2008 11:24 PM
Well, she may be busting for a fight but that's not the same as being ready to lead! That is one frightening thought, Hillary with her finger on the button!
Posted by: Mare | February 12, 2008 2:10 AM
I find it amazing that Hillary always passes these "tests." Maybe a lot of it has to do with the fact the tests she passes are self-administered.
The fact is, we don't have anyone running for President who is qualified for the job. Ron Paul, in my view, has some of the best ideas, but ideas aren't enough to step into the job of the federal government's top administrator.
This entire election cycle is a train running off the tracks. Regardless of who wins, we will have elected a turkey for president, and we will regret it. Sorry for the optimism.
Posted by: John W. | February 12, 2008 3:29 AM
. Her first problem would be retention as many of today's military leaders will retire before going down that Clinton path again!
Posted by: Keith Roche | February 11, 2008 9:27 PM
Are you implying that the Officer corps is happier with the type of leadership that leaves the military unable to defend the United States and that follows strategies that are counter-productive in the War on Terror?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiXNXno_C1g3DvYqktIfCDCQmHbQD8UH69SG0
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/11/rand.insurgencies/
The Republicans cannot be trusted to oversee the military.
Posted by: Luke | February 12, 2008 9:14 AM
Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.
Posted by: PulSamsara | February 12, 2008 9:45 AM
Any one who can inspire and motivate like Obama -leave alone his natural eloquence-must be intelligent and a born leader! So what this hype about about'passing the commander-in-chief test'.
Posted by: Rizvi.H.A | February 12, 2008 11:40 AM
TO Jade 7243, excellent blog!!!Bravo! I can add that I love Hillary's new word she just learned, "vetted." It's a word that's been around for years, but apparently she just learned it, judging by the number of times she has repeated it in just the last few weeks, e.g. "I've already been vetted." Well, truth is, she hasn't.
Posted by: lori | February 12, 2008 11:48 AM
Question? How can someone
that has such distain for the military be a good commander-in-chief? According to the book "Dereliction of duty"
neither the Clintons or the Gores had any respect for the military. The book also claims Pres. Clinton lost the secret codes that are needed in case of attack.
Posted by: Paul Jaeger | February 12, 2008 1:26 PM
What is it that allows Hillary to make these 'I'm the one that's ready to lead on day one' ... 'I'm better for the job' statements?
What is it in her experience that makes her more prepared?
Why can't she lay out some proof the back these statements? She likes to call Barack out on rhetoric, but that's all she's dishing out!
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/02/hillary-clinton-underdog-with-all.html
Pretty much sums it up!
Posted by: TB | February 12, 2008 1:47 PM
Why doesn't she ever back up her stuff up? We are entitled to see the White House records, but her husband is holding them until after the election. She's hiding her tax returns. She did not READ the intelligence report before she sent America to war. Teenagers, to war. Now David Shuster must deal with the wrath of mom? She's not ready, she's a poser, a hanger-on.
Posted by: CC | February 12, 2008 3:52 PM
Hillary pass the "Commander in Chief" test? So, if she became president, what would she fight back with? Her cackle? Remember, this is the woman whose White House staff treated active duty military officers like Indian untouchables - 1969 was alive and well in the first Lady's office. Or maybe she'd shed a tear - that would really impress Putin, the Arabs and the Chinese.
Posted by: Warrior | February 12, 2008 6:19 PM
Hillary does pass the commander in chief test because she has the knowledge and judgement honed from years of fighting for regular Americans.
Obama has recently won because his groups of supporters were the largest. I read about these demographics of the people who support Obama. In the exit polls, one of his groups is the affluent whites. Here is what I ask of them: what do they know of suffering? What do they know about not having health care? Of fearing job loss? Of worrying about home foreclosure? They do not know any of this anxiety. So, they vote based on idealism. They vote on high rhetoric. They vote on what makes them temporarily feel good.
When these people are asked what issue they like about Obama, they respond with Hope and Change. They do not know what he stands for.
As a person who is grounded by real issues, I can tell you exactely what I like about Hillary's policies. She proposes universal health care, and she has experience getting this done by working on S-Chip.
Well, as one who struggles, I can tell you that the days Obama winning are soon over because the next states after tonight will reflect the will of the working class, not the affluent.
Posted by: Jan | February 12, 2008 8:38 PM
Can Howard Wolfson please share with the rest of the us what exactly the Commander-In-Chief test?
Just curious what was George W. Bush score?
Posted by: Wendy Brown | March 11, 2008 1:13 PM
The remaining candidates on the Democratic side are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. On the Republican side John McCain has gotten the Nomination.
The focus was directly related to the area of Islamic Extremist and the various methods of handling different groups around the globe.
Listen to the debate audio...here!
http://www.hotconflict.com/blog/2008/03/presidential-el.html
Posted by: HotConflict | March 13, 2008 10:20 AM