Hillary’s night.
January 9, 2008, 7:22 am
Posted by Grant Gallicho
So, what happened? A late break for Hillary that polls couldn’t detect? Did the pollsters have the bad luck of stumbling on a group of liar-respondents? Theories abound: Her choke-up moment humanized her. Coupled with her debate performance, women were inspired to show their support. Bill’s late appearance/Obama attack suppressed Barack fever. New Hampshire voters thumbed their noses at the media’s coronation of Obama. Independents voted for McCain believing Obama had it sewn up. Obama supporters stayed home believing their man didn’t need their vote to win. What are your pet theories?
(Did anyone hear Tom Brokaw excoriate the press for their reliance on polling on MSNBC? Even left Chris Matthews speechless. Not an easy thing to do.)
I’m happy there is a race for the nomination. I don’t think it’s good for the political process to have it all settled after two primaries.
And personally, I think the hyper-supportive rhetoric –of Clinton in IA and then of Obama in NH–causes a backlash. Neither one is inevitable.
I think at this point in our political process, and in our country, believing that one’s vote matters–that the popular will matters–is extremely important. Nothing is inevitable-it’s our choice.
On the way home last evening, I met a neighbor and I assume an Obama supporter who wished that he’d stop being so vague and infuse his rhetoric with some concrete proposals. Of course, like me, she has probably only seen debates, TV, etc., and not any candidate face-to-face. We should remember that a very large number of NH voters will have seen the candidates in person. That may make a big difference in how they vote. The woman vote for Hillary? Is it that impressive? Need a little research on the male/female percentages to candidates in past elections. As I recall, Bill did well with women voters, (but let’s not go there again). Is it because she’s a woman or because she proposes policies that women see as beneficial?
Anyway, all was pretty exciting and amazing last evening. Jeffrey Toobin on CNN did the polls are hogwash number and flumoxed Anderson Cooper.
The polls are not hogwash and Brokaw knows there would be little news without polls. It was definitely women who made the difference. Certainly as compared to Iowa. They changed in the last three hours or so. No question Hillary’s emotional moment was huge. She will definitely continue to have more range in her emotions as her campaign promised. Barack seemed a bit worn in defeat and his teleprompter speech got a little hackneyed with comparisons to JFK and King. He might remember that it is generally agreed that Kennedy made most journalists lose their objectivity.
We cannot escape that the women’s angle will be with us for a while. We shall see if this was a watershed moment for some women who finally get it.
It is always pleasant to see the pundits undone. This endless campaign has been a boon to punditdom (punditdumb?). It is heartening to see that the candidates are not the only ones that can err.
“He might remember that it is generally agreed that Kennedy made most journalists lose their objectivity.” Not to mention a few Irish-American Catholics.
Joseph,
When I was in the eight grade, we had televisions in the classroom to watch the Kennedys. I remember the girls squealing at the sight of Bobby Kennedy, and the nuns beamed. If the girls had squealed that way at any other man under any other circumstances, the nuns would have been appalled.
I remember of number of years later laughing out loud when reading Thomas Merton’s journal entry in Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander which read, in its entirety
It still makes me laugh.
Obama is done. He’ll concede any day now. That’s what he gets for being the establishment candidate playing on the aura of inevitablity and experience. It was a nice, shining moment while it lasted. But he’s the politics of the past. Iowa was what, three, four days ago? Hillary is the future. She’s about the audacity of hope from Arkansas. Right?
Last night was a good night for politics, for democracy. It was crazy to crown Obama after Iowa. It’s crazy to crown Hillary now. It’ll be a rollicking month ahead.
Michigan’s messed-up primary is coming up soon. Some Dems, including Obama and Edwards, are snubbing the state because the Legislature tried to reschedule the primary to outshine New Hampshire.
Whether they’ll make appearances here, I don’t know because I haven’t gotten my party info yet; if so, it’ll likely be in Grand Rapids and Detroit.
Who’s left on the ballot here due to the snafu:
DEMOCRATS: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Uncommitted.
REPUBLICANS: Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson, Uncommitted.
Of those on the ballot, only Clinton is still in the running, so “uncommitted” may win, unless Dems like me cross over to vote in the Republican primary (McCain has bipartisan support here), where the principals are still on the ballot.
Bill Mazzella, I can’t resist poking you one last time. Do you see anything just the teensiest bit chauvinistic about your claims that women who don’t support Hillary don’t “get it”? If I were a man and I saw that women were deeply divided or apprehensive about a female candidate, I’d be wondering what I wasn’t “getting.”
While I don’t plan to vote for her in our primary, I do think she handled herself well in New Hampshire.
As to Grant’s question about “what happened,” I wouldn’t be surprised if a few moments in the TV coverage of Clinton did have an effect on women voters.
The “choked-up” moment has gotten a lot of discussion, negative (as a show of weakness, emotionalism) or positive (as a real human reaction from Ms. Cool). But the note in that speech that struck home with women might have been the weary exasperation of someone whose all-out efforts to do something good were being rejected, misunderstood, not appreciated. Put that together with the much-viewed debate sequence featuring those merciless tag team attacks of Edwards and Obama as she struggled to come up with a coherent response on Gov. Spitzer’s ill-advised scheme to license illegal alien drivers, and you have two moments worthy of a soapy Lifetime Movie.
(For the record, this is not intended in any way as a negative comment on Clinton, or her candidacy, just an observation.)
It looks as if late-deciding Democrats broke heavily for Hillary, which may be at least part of the explanation for why the polls were off. The tracking polls are often based on a three day rolling sample. They were able to capture the initial Obama surge, but not the final movement to Hillary.
Also interesting that Clinton polled better among voters who feel personally economically secure. This may explain some interesting comments coming out of the Clinton camp this morning about this being a “two person race” now. While some folks think that Edwards voters are also “anti-Clinton” voters, that may not be the case. Edwards draws heavily from a white, working class base that is more likely to self-describe as “conservative” than Democratic voters generally. These may not be Obama’s best constituency.
We are going to have two very interesting races on our hands over the next few weeks!
As a way to make this all more palatable and understandable (to me) I like to view these primaries as a drawn-out political convention–way too drawn out–but one that effectively winds up choosing a leader of the party, as in the traditional parliamentary system. In these past Bush years, I have gone through periods of pining for certain aspects of parliamentary government. In fact, I did that during the [first] Clinton years at times.
As I have made it clear, I am not a huge HRC supporter, for reasons having less to do with HRC than with how her campaign has been structured and what it represents. But few things give me greater pleasure than seeing people suffer real consequences for holding women to double standards or treating them worse just because they’re women. I suspect that may be what happened, and it’s high time that women stop being one of the last classes of people (along with fat people and gays, in many circles) that you can insult, make nasty jokes about, and humiliate without fear of repercussions. A lot of this behavior is no doubt unconscious or may come across in ways that were clearly not intended, but people need to think about these things.
Did anyone notice this charge in the NYTimes editorial (January 9)?
“Mrs. Clinton ran an angry campaign in New Hampshire, and polls showed that voters noticed. She won narrowly, but came perilously close to injecting racial tension into what should have been — and still should be — an uplifting contest between the first major woman candidate and the first major African-American candidate.
In the days before the voting, Mrs. Clinton and her team were so intent on talking about how big a change a woman president would be — and it surely would — that some of her surrogates even suggested that it would be a more valuable change than an African-American president. Mrs. Clinton managed to energize the women’s vote in New Hampshire to win the contest, but the Democratic Party should be celebrating its full diversity, a refreshing and notable difference from the field of Republican contenders.
In Mrs. Clinton’s zeal to make the case that experience (hers) is more important than inspirational leadership (Mr. Obama’s), she made some peculiar comments about the relative importance of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon Johnson to the civil rights cause. She complimented Dr. King’s soaring rhetoric, but said: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. … It took a president to get it done. ”
Read the whole edit here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/09wed1.html?ref=opinion
And here’s Howard Kurtz (WashPost) on the media and the primary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html?hpid=topnews
Barbara,
I am genuinely curious. I hear a lot of talk about Hillary Clinton being held to a “double standard” beause she is a woman. Frankly, I haven’t seen it, or more accurately have seen her getting a lot of advantages that others wouldn’t. For example, where do these “35 years of experience” come from? She was essentially coronated after a term in the senate. What examples are there of her being held to a different standard?
Jean,
Women like Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Beth Johnson and Joan chittister have persuaded me that I had to take a deeper look at this. Their evidence is imposing if only people like you would give them a serious look.
“People like you”? You’re not helping your cause much, Bill.
Sean,
Don’t you think a great many people have been appalled for years that Hillary was politically ambitious? Has a man who runs for president ever been criticized for being politically ambitious? Hillary has been called a bitch. Is there even an equivalent negative word to use against a politically ambitious man? Wouldn’t you agree that calling a woman a bitch is a kind of hate speech, very similar to all the ethnic slurs that no one dares use in public nowadays?
I saw Chris Matthews last night describe Hillary’s emotional moment of a few days ago as “breaking down.” Did you see it? And Maureen Dowd’s column today is titled “Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?” It was nowhere near breaking down, and scarcely crying. I don’t think a man would be talked about that way.
I assume that when Bill refers to me with the phrase “people like you,” he means “otherwise intelligent and charming person,” that is, in the nicest possible way.
And while I find Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Beth Johnson and Joan Chittister admirable women, and while I am happy that Bill pays attention to them, he and I simply disagree that Hillary is the best candidate in the Democratic ranks right now.
Ooops, must have crossed paths with David Nickol.
Male alternative to “bitch”? Yes there is! “Son of a bitch.” Sad, isn’t it?
David,
Ambition Has a man ever been criticized for being overly politically ambitious? Absolutely! There’s her husband for one. More recently, wasn’t that exactly what she and her campaign were trying to do to Obama with the whole, “This guy has been wanting to be President since kindergarten” routine?
Calling her a bitch – Certainly this is rude and unforgiveable, but I still don’t see the double standard. I have heard Bush, Cheney, and B. Clinton all called bastards (or worse) at one time or another. If they don’ t use those words on Hillary (which they won’t because she is a woman), I suppose that is a “double standard,” but is it one that makes any difference? Politics is a contact sport. People will say nasty things about you.
On the breaking down issue – If anything, she caught a break because she was a woman. Can you spell Ed Muskie?
Imagine this dialogue – “Rudy, you’ve struggled with cancer, that can’t be easy. This campaign is exhausting, you seem to hold it together pretty well. How do you manage getting through the day?” Rudy gets weepy, and more importantly, he does it just a few days after suffering a big political defeat. Do you really think he would have gotten the benefit of the doubt?
BTW, I agree with you that it wasn’t breaking down. However, my impression was not favorable. In fact, I would be more impressed if some of the speculation that she was faking it was true. If she wasn’t, it struck me (welling-up aside) as kind of self-pitying. All the candidates think they are running to fix and improve things, what makes her so different?
I believe someone in the Clinton camp alluded to a “paper” written by Obama in kindergarten (!) in which he, Obama, stated that he wanted to be president someday. This was supposed to put Obama in a bad light – too much ambition I suppose. What in pluperfect Hell is wrong with a young child wanting to be president?
Hey, I am not a big HRC fan as a candidate, and if you read my posts in the last thread you would know that I don’t think she is without fault for the complexity of the reaction to her as a result of her relationship with her husband. But yes, I do think that she has been vilified by many people, over time, because she is ambitious and competitive, in ways that men would not be vilified. Sean, I really think it’s hard for men to see this, and I’m speaking honestly based on my general experience and not personally as to you. Many men are very unconscious of the way that they treat women, especially when they are in a group.
Bob,
The Clinton campaign was answering what was taken to be a dig at Hillary, which was Obama saying he wasn’t running for president to fulfill a long-held ambition. Apparently he has talked about running for president for many years. So they were not criticizing the idea of a young child wanting to be president. They were criticizing what they considered to be a false statement on Obama’s part. Probably they should have let his comments pass without comment altogether, and certainly it was just silly to bring up Obama’s kindergarten essay. But all the fuss over the kindergarten essay distracted from the point the Clinton campaign was attempting to make, which I am sure is exactly what the Obama camp wanted.
David:
Point taken. I hadn’t heard about Obama’s earlier comment.
Jean and I have always gotten along well and our differences, unlike with some others, has never driven a wedge between us. I guess I mean many things by ‘people like you.’ For example whenever males get out of hand with reference to bias against women on this blog it is usually Jean who comes out blasting at them as she is quite perceptive and sees it right away. But I do feel that people ‘like Jean’ do not take the next step. I may be wrong but I don’t think that Jean and others have given Schussler-Fiorenza or Johnson a thorough view. Barbara wrote: “Many men are very unconscious of the way that they treat women, especially when they are in a group.” I think this is also true of women in the sense that they tolerate the harassment of ambitious women.
Perhaps my phrasing can be better like women of that school, of a particular bent, inclination, etc.
Bill:
It seems to me that we can now forward a further unconscious motivation with respect to the outcome of New Hampshire. There has been a lot of discussion on race playing a role. In fact a professor on CNN made the point that Bill Clinton consciously or unconsciously telegraphed and played into that sublimated fear in some of his comments.
While I was sympathetic to the woman who said that it is dangerous to go down that road but I wondered why not? Media has no problem going down that road with sex. Race is far more explosive possibly because it lies far closer to the truth. There can be no empirical validation of unconscious motivations but we can agree that they exist. But which are deeper and more entrenched? The only evidence we have is that there has not been a female or minority elected in the Whitehouse.
However, I think that the race is a stronger unconscious factor and that can be evidenced by looking at the behaviours of electors in Anglo orbit (UK, Australia, US and Canada). In these nations there have been women elected leaders. In Germany a woman was elected leader as well.
Yet in all of these Western countries I don’t believe that we have had a person of colour elected leader.
So the evidence in terms of actual results seems to support the notion that structures of race are far deeper than those of sex.
Bill:
It seems to me that we can now forward a further unconscious motivation with respect to the outcome of New Hampshire. There has been a lot of discussion on race playing a role. In fact a professor on CNN made the point that Bill Clinton consciously or unconsciously telegraphed and played into that sublimated fear in some of his comments.
While I was sympathetic to the woman who said that it is dangerous to go down that road but I wondered why not? Media has no problem going down that road with sex. Race is far more explosive possibly because it lies far closer to the truth. There can be no empirical validation of unconscious motivations but we can agree that they exist. But which are deeper and more entrenched? The only evidence we have is that there has not been a female or minority elected in the Whitehouse.
However, I think that the race is a stronger unconscious factor and that can be evidenced by looking at the behaviours of electors in Anglo orbit (UK, Australia, US and Canada). In these nations there have been women elected leaders. In Germany a woman was elected leader as well.
Yet in all of these Western countries I don’t believe that we have had a person of colour elected leader.
So the evidence in terms of actual results seems to support the notion that structures of race are far deeper than those of sex.
Sean,
My point about Hillary being called a bitch is that there is not even an equivalently hurtful derogatory word for a man, just as there is no derogatory word for “white person” that is anywhere near as hurtful as “the N word.” The position in society of women, blacks, and a few other groups (for example, gay people and Jews) is such that there are hurtful words to identify them, but there is no unprintable word that means “white heterosexual male.”
Regarding tears, I have seen President Bush get at least as emotional as Hillary did, and he says he cries all the time.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3558276
It’s really not whether someone sheds a tear or not (which, by the way, Hillary did not do), but the circumstances under which they get emotional and, in addition, whether you are sympathetic to them or not.
Bob Schwartz–don’t yield so easily! David N.: are you justifying the borderline insane kindergarten episode (which is still, I believe, in a press release on Hil’s site) by Obama’s citation of the specious theory of Clinton’s “plan”? Mosaic-law politics? If so, how do you justify the Clinton camp’s use of Obama’s admitted drug use? It kept coming up when Mark Penn and other Clintonites were interviewed. Or Bob Kerrey’s repeated referrals to Obama as a Muslim and Obama’s middle name? Or Bill’s “fairy tale” comment?
Some reality checks. Blacks are only 12% of the population. Any group with that low percentage is a natural underdog to rise to the top position. No one is talking about that. Secondly, women are over 50% of the population. So.
Further, there has been no Italians or other ethnic group who are well over 12%. Only one Irish person has been elected president.
David,
I guess I just don’t buy the whole “hate speech” angle. A nasty epithet is a nasty epithet. The B word has different connotations depending on the context. Even if in this context you assume that it means a nasty, conniving, selfish woman, there are plenty of foul names men are called that mean substantially the same thing – like SOB. Again, I can’t see the double standard.
It is not crying as such that is the issue. It is one thing to cry over a dead soldier or with a grieving mother. It is quite another to well up when you are frustrated because your “message” and how much you “care” isn’t getting through during a political campaign. Again, if Mitt Romney or another man said and did exactly the same thing she did – game over. She actually benefited from that double standard.
Bill – Ronald Reagan was Protestant, but definitely Irish. What about Scots-Irish like Andrew Jackson?