Just one short week ago, every media outlet was repeating the same story: Hillary had no chance in New Hampshire, and no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton, the once inevitable candidate, had finally fallen. In Iowa, New Hampshire and all across the nation, people were looking for a candidate who could shake things up in Washington, and another Clinton wasn't who they had in mind.
The polls agreed. It seemed that every passing hour brought yet another poll showing Barack Obama widening his lead over his sinking opponent. It was obvious that he had the nomination clinched.
And then, the people of New Hampshire went to the polls, and the reigning conventional wisdom hit the ground like an over-ripe honeydew melon.
What happened?
If you believe the hype, Hillary managed to snag gold in New Hampshire because she displayed startlingly realistic, Oprah-style emotions in front of a live audience. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, get yourself a pack of maximum strength tylenol, pour yourself a glass of the strong alcoholic and/or caffeinated beverage of your choice, and fix your eyes on the video below. (Note: the question Hillary is responding to is "how do you do it?")
If you gag at the sight of Hillary Clinton coming to the brink of tears as she talks about how passionate she is about America, I'm right there with you. In fact, when I first saw the video, I was so sold on the idea that it would damage the Clinton campaign that I planned on including it in a future post about Obama's New Hampshire victory. But that victory never emerged, and that video is now being touted as the secret to Clinton's stunning success.
According to the popular theory, Hillary's emotional monologue allowed her to connect with female voters, who happen to make up about 50% of the American electorate. And when John Edwards cast himself as the oppressive white patriarch by ever-so-subtly suggesting that a true leader should be tough, her good fortune only increased. The enraged women of New Hampshire supposedly turned out in droves to defend a sister in need, providing her with the razor thin victory she so desperately needed.
If that analysis is correct -- and if Hillary gets the nomination -- things could take a turn for the weird in the general election. Before New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton deliberately ran a gender neutral campaign, which, as I previously noted, made her into an unappealing candidate. But she had a reason for doing this. By running as a bland, emotionless women, she obviously thought that she would alienate fewer people than she would if she went totally aggressive (stereotypical masculine behavior) or totally soft (stereotypical feminine behavior). When she was finally dethroned in Iowa, she knew she had to change her strategy, and change it fast. So, she took a chance and decided to play the gender card, hoping to nab key female voters even at the risk of losing male voters -- who were already abandoning her. Apparently, it worked. If this strategy continues on into November, the presidential election could turn into the battle of the sexes played out on the national stage. Is that really what the Democratic party wants? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
But there is another theory that may have a bit of truth to it, and it's one that suggests a brighter future for the Republicans than many suspect. The theory is rooted in the following simple facts: in New Hampshire, independents can choose to vote in either the Republican or the Democratic primaries -- and New Hampshire is a swing state, where independents are the majority. On the Republican side of the equation, McCain has always attracted large numbers of independents who adore his "maverick" positions. Barack Obama, who has consistently lagged behind HIllary among party-members, also depends heavily on independent support. On Tuesday, McCain was predictably carried to victory by his independent base. Obama, on the other hand, was not. Could it be that McCain stole Obama's victory by drawing away independents who would've normally voted in the Democratic primary? It's certainly a possibility, and if it's even partially true, Democrats should be afraid. Very, very, afraid. That is, if the Republicans nominate McCain. The millions of independents scattered across the country are the people who ultimately decide elections, and if an independent magnet like McCain goes up against a polarizing candidate like Clinton, the Republicans might actually have a shot at securing the white-house for four more years.
On an even brighter note, by the time McCain dies in office, our constitution will be amended to extend the right to run for president to our foreign-born citizens. Then we can all sit back and enjoy the bi-partisan bliss of the Schwarzenegger administration, a veritable golden-age in which we'll see Mexico annexed, Mars colonized, and seal-clubbing made into a government-approved recreational activity. Don't be environmental girlie men!
No comments:
Post a Comment