The robot won.
Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama in the second round of the Democratic primaries, winning New Hampshire by a narrow three percent of the vote.
I am depressed. Disheartened. Above all, surprised – nay, shocked! The momentum seemed to be with Obama, the pundits seemed to be with Obama, the polls showed a massive lead for Obama – but still Obama lost.
So, should we all avoid making political predictions from now on? The FT’s chief foreign affairs columnist Gideon Rachman writes on his blog this morning:
“To be fair to the pundits and the pollsters, it wasn’t just journalists who were confidently predicting an Obama victory. Even people in the Hillary camp were talking about trying to keep margin of their defeat in New Hampshire down to below double digits.”
So what helped Hillary to her surprise victory? I would point to two obvious incidents earlier in the week.
In the first, her husband and (popular) former president took a (rhetorical) hammer and tongs to Obama’s (antiwar) record on Iraq, pointing out the latter’s inconsistent voting and seemingly hawkish comments since arriving in the Senate in 2004. Speaking at a campaign event at Dartmouth College, an indignant, finger-pointing Bill Clinton said in response to a pro-Obama question from a student:
"That is the central argument for his campaign. 'It doesn't matter that I started running for president less a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois State Senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I'm the only one who had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning. Always, always, always.' "
"…it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.
"This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media, doesn't mean the facts aren't out there.”
Despite my soft spot for Barack, I cannot help but sympathize with Bubba’s rant. Obama’s campaign has been given a certain ‘fairytale’ hue by a rather uncritical press corps (and his position on Iraq has certainty not been as fervently or consistently antiwar and anti-occupation as, perhaps, that of Dennis Kucinich or, on the Republican side, Ron Paul. But is the ‘fairy tale’ now over, or do voters simply respond badly to anyone (be it Clinton or Obama) that the media tends to put up on a pedestal and then crown king (or queen)? As one reader of Andrew Sullivan’s excellent blog puts it:
“I think Obama won Iowa because voters resented Hillary's coronation.
“I think Hillary won New Hampshire because voters resented Obama's coronation.”
The other incident that cannot be overlooked is Hillary’s emotional moment. She was asked by a woman in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, "How do you do it?" The woman wanted to know how Hillary, despite all her stress, remains "so wonderful"?
Hillary answered, fighting back tears, "I couldn't do it if I just didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do." The New York Times noted that her eyes were "visibly wet." Later Hillary told the Times she became all choked up because "it was just so touching when this woman said: well, what about you. I just don't think about that. I just think about what I can do for other people. I have spent a lifetime trying to help others. I’m very other-directed."
Despite being mocked by right-wingers (and some Obama supporters) for her unexpected show of emotion, the fact is that Hillary’s ‘crying’ (or ‘choking’, or ‘wet eyes’, or semi-crying, or whatever you want to call it) humanized her. The political automaton for, a moment, became a real human person; a woman with whom other women could empathize, sympathize and identify. (Consequently, and retrospectively, it is therefore unsurprising that a "surge" of women voters in New Hampshire, turning out in record numbers, helped propel Hillary to victory there).
However, the Clintons’ antics aside, is there a third, perhaps darker, factor at work in this campaign? I am referring here to the notoriously infamous 'Bradley effect'. The Guardian explains it here:
“The phenomenon was named after Tom Bradley, the long time mayor of Los Angeles, and describes the difference between what members of the public will say in relation to a black candidate when asked by pollsters and the change in their behaviour when they actually vote.
“Bradley, who is black, ran as the Democratic candidate for governor in 1982, but, after polls showed he was consistently in the lead, he was a surprise loser.
“It was suggested that voters may have told pollsters they supported the black candidate, because they were embarrassed to admit they were racist, but that when it came to voting in private they supported his white opponent, precisely because he was not black.”
Having won Iowa (95% white), and having led in the polls since Iowa, sadly, tragically, depressingly, the black Senator from Ilinois failed to win New Hampshire (96% white). But let’s see what happens on the January 26th in South Carolina (50% black). Here’s hoping…
Incidentally, the (Bill) Clinton ‘rant’ video is here:
The (Hillary) Clinton 'crying' video is here
No comments:
Post a Comment