Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Why Hillary?

Pundits and pollsters are perplexed. So am I. But I am neither pundit nor pollster. Politics is more a visceral rather than cerebral sport for me: I go with hunches and feelings and intuitions. And my hunches were wrong, dead wrong. I had Barack Obama easily winning New Hampshire, with John Edwards coming in second and Hillary Clinton stumbling in at third. All I can do is laugh at myself.

________________________

Why Hillary?

Since I am not a pundit of any professional stature, I will not bore you with lengthy expositions on theory. Instead, I will quickly offer several reasons I think Mrs. Clinton won.

1. The Vanity Vote (aka The Snob Factor)

New Hampshire voters are vain and they guard that vanity well: There is no way that New Hampshire voters will often permit themselves to like those folks from Iowa. Barack Obama's success in Iowa was his doom here. New Hampshire voters believe they are more perceptive, informed, discerning than other voters; they pride themselves in being deeply involved. In 1984, Iowans chose Walter Mondale, but NH chose Gary Hart. In 1988, Dick Gephardt took Iowa while Mike Dukakis took NH. In 1992, Iowa went with Tom Harkin as NH took Paul Tsongas. And though Al Gore and John Kerry won both states' early elections in 2000 and 2004, respectively, this year marks a return to the old trend. New Hampshire not only wants to preserve the image that its primary is truly unique, the state wants to maintain its image of fierce independence.

2. The 'Minority' Vote (aka The Nostalgic Feminist Vote)

On the 2008 Democratic ticket voters are asked to choose between two minorities, a black man and a woman. Since exit polls show that New Hampshire's gray-haired females voted for Mrs. Clinton, we can safely conclude that such voters believe it is 'Hillary's time.' New Hampshire voters apparently believe that the first minority to walk into the Oval Office as president should be a woman, and not a black man. No doubt Mr. Obama's youth worked against him here, as voters probably believe that his chance for the White House will come later; he cometh too soon. Now is the time for a woman.

Undeniably, voters believe Hillary hasn't a future chance at the White House: This time truly IS her time. And with a dearth of viable women candidates (who else?) coming up through the Democratic Party, Hillary's need trumps the African American dream, but only for a season.

Related to this almost nostalgic view of feminist aspirations, the Bill Clinton factor looms large in its own nostalgic way. When I reported yesterday that an amazing number of folks who attended a local Bill Clinton event on Monday exited with this on their lips -- "I wish I could vote for him again!" -- I failed to report that the vast majority of those who uttered those words were OLDER women. I, dope as I am, misunderstood their words: I was certain they realized that a vote for Hill was actually an impossibly nostalgic vote for Bill. No one who felt that way for him would vote for his wife, I assured myself; the swooning electorate had to realize that she and he are NOT identical.

No surprise. I was wrong.

3. The War Vote (aka The Commander-in-Chief in a Dress Vote)

Irrespective of how downplayed in the media the Iraq War has become, shrewd voters know that it remains the country's largest issue, at least its largest foreign policy issue. Voters also know that John McCain, who has a real shot at winning the Republican nomination, is a true hawk and is, in many ways, responsible for the "success" of the Iraq "surge" led by General David Petraeus. Hence, New Hampshire voters descried that any viable Democratic candidate could not be a flight-or-flight dove.

Hillary Clinton's win here is nothing short of a massive blow to the anti-war left. After all, it was the Clinton administration -- even after leaving office -- that issued dire warnings about Saddam Hussein's renegade ways and the threat he posed to national security. Mrs. Clinton was remarkably hawkish throughout the "run up" to war; she was not a protester but one of the principal supporters of the Iraq invasion. Her defenses of the Bush Doctrine even mollified the anxieties of many in the middle left of her party.

Of course, analytical Democrats have ALWAYS known that the invasion of Iraq was not merely cooked up by the Republican Bush; in 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act that called for regime change in Iraq, which became part-and-parcel integral to the Bush Doctrine. Analytical Democrats know that Iraq is a central foothold for American self-preservation in a hostile Middle East; and they know that ANY Republican success there will leave someone like John McCain in a very pretty and patriotic light; someone like Barack Obama -- who boasts of opposing the war even when he was a mere state senator in Illinois -- will be left in the worst possible light (the worst thing that can happen to Barack Obama's ambitions is for Iraq to go well). Voters know that Mrs. Clinton has maintained a conveniently ambiguous and politically expedient position that allows her to take credit for positive gains in the War on Terror.

In other words, Hillary Clinton's success in New Hampshire has everything to do with ensuring that the Democrats' nominee for president can defend American military involvement in the Middle East, particularly in the face of John McCain's strong military background and political successes. The only viable candidate on the Democratic ticket who can address the war issue in a responsible manner is -- without question -- Hillary Clinton. Unless Iraq turns into a glaringly obvious mess, which is quite possible, Hillary Clinton takes the nomination.

_______________________

I should add that there was also the "Pity Vote" based on Mrs. Clinton's apparent struggle as a woman to get a fair hearing; and the "Blame the Media" vote (the Pity Vote's little sister) managed by Bill Clinton, which included the suggestion that Barack Obama has been given a pass by the media -- enamored as they are with Obama's alleged "fairy tale" life narrative -- partly because he is black.

Again, just some hasty post-primary thoughts.

Peace.

Bill Gnade

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

3 comments:

Chris Wilson said...

Punditry is funny. I have gotten into the habit of writing down pundits predictions, simply to see if, post event, they were right. I do this mostly with sports predictions and predictions about the economy (almost nobody pegged the subprime mortgage disaster before it happended). I may be mistaken but it seems that almost all of the official news outlets had NH sewn up for the Obama camp, and certainly all the more so after Hillary teared up for the cameras.

While you are most certainly right about the reasons for a Hillary victory in NH, what the pundits are now saying is that when the primaries move to the big metropolitans, the young vote, apparently energized by the Obama juggernaut, will swing things away from Mrs. Clinton. They say his "get out of Iraq" position is resonating with them.

Unfortunately, the "Oligarchy" is not ready for Obama, in my opinion, but in Hillary, there is a note of the status quo they so desperately crave, even in the novelty of a female presidency.

Undergroundpewster said...

When it comes to politics, everyone (in the U.S.) can be a pundit. Thank our founding fathers for this freedom.

Anonymous said...

I'm assuming you saw Maureen Dowd's take today on the tear episode. She (Dowd) actually says that Hillary was weeping for us, the voters unwilling to see how wonderful she is.

Tomorrow, I'm writing about that sentence as a comparison with Christ weeping for Jerusalem at the beginning of Holy Week.

I hope I don't get struck by lightning.

Cheers.