Race, Religion, Gender Didn't Matter
So, it looks like after Tuesday's contests in Ohio and Texas Barack Obama is about to turn from likely to inevitable nominee.
Going into the March 4th primaries the best we can say about where Hillary Clinton stands is that she is 0-11-2 since Super Tuesday. She has lost eleven caucuses and primaries in a row, and at best has finished in a draw on two debates (one could logically make the argument she lost both debates because she didn't slow Obama's momentum, but heck, why pour salt on an open wound!)
There has been much speculation recently about why Clinton has ended up in this position, and many pundits are pointing to the difficulty of her being able to run because she is a woman.
I just don't buy into that, and neither do the citizens of this country.
A year ago Clinton was up 30 points in the polls; six months ago she was up 25 points in the polls; a month ago she was up 15 points in the polls; two weeks ago she was slightly ahead; and now she is significantly behind.
Did the public in the last few days just now discover she is a woman???? Hardly.
When Obama won Iowa the pundits were all shocked that an African American could carry a nearly all white electorate, and then when he didn't meet expectations in New Hampshire, pundits started saying it was because of some latent racism.
Again, a terrible misread on where voters are.
In the Republican primary, there was constant talk that Mitt Romney's failure to win was somehow linked to his Mormon religion. And then of course we find out he did better than John McCain among evangelicals at nearly every step of the way. Another misjudgment by the media and pundits of the country's acceptance of diversity.
At many, many, many places along this campaign the public (and voters specifically) have been well ahead of where many analysts of this election are and ahead of how the campaign has been covered.
The United States as a country has come to terms with itself over the years and is totally willing to support a woman as president, or an African-American, or someone who is a Mormon.
It's time we stopped using these labels as an excuse of why certain candidates don't succeed.
If Hillary ends up losing, it will be because she never had a vision or a message that resonated with the majority of voters and that many voters were looking for a change candidate, and not a candidate who held out their Washington experience as crucial.
If Obama, for some unknown reason stumbles, it will be because voters no longer believed that how he conducted his campaign matched his rhetoric of hope and healing or that he made some big gaffes highlighting some preparedness argument.
And Romney lost because voters believed he was not authentic in what he said along the campaign trail on a variety of issues.
So, as one of the folks who covers this race, I think it's time we got past the old excuses and rationale based in a time gone by in the voters minds. I think we would all be better off catching up to where the voters already are in how they judge the leader they want.
We can learn much by following the "wisdom of crowds" especially as it relates to ancient labels.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hillary went into this with EVERY advantage a politician can possibly have. Name recognition, powerful connections, big money donations, the MSM focusing on her, everything. It was hers to lose. But she's no Bill Clinton. Bill's words (like Obama's) are inspiring. Bill could connect with an audience. Hillary comes across as pure contrivance, and she is. Add to that her record of followership in doing whatever is politically popular at the time, no matter whether its right or wrong, and you get to where we are now in this election-you lose Hill.
While I looked at the candidates of this race with hope and optimism at one time, the ugliness, the dirty words, the innuendo and compete twisting of anything Mrs. Clinton has to say by Obama supporters on the web has changed it all. How could I possibly support someone who spawns this kind of uncalled for nastiness against someone that has worked so hard for them, that in the past they have loved and supported? I have watched this man's ego bound out-of-control and it truly saddens me. I just hope all these hate-filled people who seemingly worship this candidate (or at least the version we have been sold) will eventually apologize and understand that their hatred is misplaced. For when the GOP go after Mr. Obama -- and they will -- these same people will be asking those they have mocked and disrespected in desperate pleas to forget all they have said and done and vote for this man against McCain. I know it is tempting for these people to assume the general election will be a cake-walk for Obama because "everyone" loves him, but it won't, it will be incredibly close and ugly. They will want Mrs. Clinton to work for them and to reach out to her supporters to vote for him. Of course she will do this, she has had to suck it up and carry on many times in the past. I hope I can live up to her example because right now I know that if the situation was reversed these angry, immature people could not do the same.
Interesting how you can see twisting of Clinton's words, while I see the EXACT OPPOSITE. I see Clinton's supporters as being mean and hateful and nasty and insulting (koolaide, cult worshippers, etc). I see Clinton as perpetuating baseless attacks on Obama and being hypocritical about it in the process.
Are you drinking the Kool aide or am I? (No need to answer, I know what you'll say). I don't know about you, but I've already cast my primary vote (for Edwards) and it didn't matter anyway (FL).
How about we agree to disagree, but both pledge to work for WHOEVER gets the nomination? Would you be willing to go that far? Would you be willing to put your bias and emotion aside to work to get a Democrat - either Democrat elected in the fall?
Petty bickering aside - I'm willing to work for the good of my country and make SURE that another warmongering Republican is NOT handed the keys to this kingdom. How about you? Will you join with me when all is said and done?
Was that angry and immature enough for you? (If I was going to be a jerk - I would point out that just these sorts of namecalling are what I mean when saying it's the Clinton supporters who attack Obama supporters. But I'm not gonna go there, okay?)
Although there are vast, obvious differences between them, two things Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani seem to have in common: they are both from New York, and the more public exposure they have, the further down in the polls they sink.
Whether this has been due to their policies or their personas is an interesting, perhaps fascinating, question. The radical differences in their policy positions would seem to suggest that perhaps it's all a case of public perception.
In the case of Barack Obama, the opposite dynamic seems to have taken hold: the more the public sees of him, the more support he garners.
That suggests a related question, more pertinent to the current state of play: is the continuing Clinton slide a case of Hillary losing support or Barack gaining support?
Up to now, the only two Senators who have gone directly from the Senate to the Presidency have been Warren Harding, one of the most corrupt presidents in American history, and John Kennedy, one of the most inspirational. Clearly the most inspirational candidate in this election cycle has been Sen. Obama.
Based on past history, our best bet for the next former senator to occupy the Oval Office might be a fellow named "Obama." Of course, I could be wrong.
It amazed me that Hillary Clinton's campaign insisted that her Washington experience was crucial. They could hardly avoid it, because she had a voting record to defend. Bush's approval ratngs hover in the low thirties, but Congressional poll ratings are just as low. Here's an interesting 'what if' experiment. Would Clinton be trailing Obama if she had his voting record, or even Ted Kennedy's, or Russ Feingold's, or even running as the sitting (ha!) state governor from New York? Would Obama be leading if had voted for the Iraq use of force resolution without reading the NIE or voted for the Iranian resolution declaring part of their military a terrorist organization? What if Clinton had refused to take campaign contributions from special interest groups like Obama? By comparison, Obama is a newcomer. That's why Obama polls even better against McCain than Clinton.
My, my! You certainly put forward a different observation when you appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher and Andrew Sullilvan a few weeks ago.
You said then that the country is showing it is more willing to elect a black man than a woman. Bill Maher jumped visibly and sputtered," You mean this woman!" Then Sullivan and the other male panel member also put you down, and it was all over in 10 seconds.
What was most interesting to me at the time was that neither Hillary Clinton's name nor the words "woman" or "women" were mentioned by any of you before that exchange or after that exchange. The four of you spoke of how meaningful Obama's campaign was to African-Americans, but none of you saw fit to consider for a moment how much Hillary Clinton's campaign meant to millions of women. You just continued the show without even a thought or a mention of women. You dismissed us entirely.
I mentioned this to my friends and we all agreed that if any of you were confronted with the charge that you were sexist you would all deny it vigorously. But your sexism is obvious to me even if you all are in perfect denial.
Please check the tape and see yourselves in action. For me it is one more memory of the sexist attitudes that have run all through this campaign.
So, what would you accuse the millions of women, such as myself, who have voted for Obama of doing? Pandering to the patriarchy? Excuse me while I try not to laugh in your face and fail. Clinton's been inconsistent, she's played dirty politics, and can't seem to remember what position she supported four years ago compared to now. I'm supposed to vote for a candidate like that because we have the same genitalia? Spare. Me.
Great Article!! I completely agree- the whole "Bradley Effect" arguments after New Hampshire just made me angry. You articulated what I've been thinking for months very effectively.
It seems as if the media, and society, have this almost instinctual tendency to perpetuate this idea of American ignorance. I understand the historical understanding that would insist on this interpretation, however, note the electorate. The majority of people in my generation are ready and willingly to move away from identity politics and a politics that marginalizes segments of the population into groups and categories. I don't think that race, gender or religion played a significant factor in this election- in fact if anything it taught the public to stop playing this ridiculous blame game before the voters are given an opportunity to weigh in- the American people have been vastly underestimated and the results show it.
Granted, our country has a way to go before we can start lighting candles and singing kumbaiya. Nonetheless- these primaries leave very little room for doubt, people of this country really aren't as ignorant as some would like us to believe.
Clinton supporters are quick to use the gender excuse, but none of them will admit the obvious which is that Hillary Clinton lost this race by simply being herself. People are rejecting Hillary for the same reason they rejected Romney. Because neither is trustworthy. What's truly offensive is how so many Clinton supporters tried to guilt women into voting for Hillary, suggesting that not voting for a woman somehow made you a bad feminist or a traitor to your gender. It's nice to authenticity win out.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
