The past 24 hours of televised bloviation, offered without embarrassment by the same people who were spectacularly wrong about New Hampshire, brought to mind the words of Leonard Cohen :
"There is a war between the young and old,
a war between the men and the women.
There is a war between those who say there is a war
and those who say there isn't."
Underneath the radar, identity conflicts have been driving this election. The most obvious case in point from Tuesday's vote is women, as all the pundits finally figured out after the fact. Press attacks on Hillary's show of emotion and their gloating over her poor showing in Iowa triggered a surround-the-wagons reaction, even among women who don't support her politics. John Edwards' harsh reaction to her show of vulnerability lost him female support and amplified the same 'us against them' emotion.
The Clinton campaign has accidentally triggered some identity-based responses of its own. Their cynical campaign posture against idealistic Democrats created a backlash among the party base - and me, too. I'm pretty darned pragmatic in my own life (25 years in the corporate world, consultant to the Bush I State Department, etc.). But I value idealism, think of myself as idealistic, and consider it the best civic virtue. So when Hillary's campaign aides started slamming people because they hope for a better world, I hit back (and got into a little brawl with a Clinton insider. That's another Clintonista mistake: Communicating that they care more about the Clintons and each other than they do about the rest of the country. Here's an early case in point.)
Call it Rorschach politics, and it's driving the Democratic primaries. Politicians' statements look and feel different to different people, depending on their own biography and personality. And voters project qualities onto candidates that sometimes tell us more about them than they do about the candidate. You've seen it: Hillary's either a calculating and self-entitled insider, or she's a woman encircled and beleaguered by hostile men. Obama's either facile and inexperienced or he's fresh, eloquent, and hopeful. Edwards is either a fearless fighter for change or a harsh rhetorician. And on and on, until the debate stage begins to look more like a hall of mirrors.
The Clinton campaign finally got it. Women weren't going to buy her as a heartless, unfeeling simulacrum of a 'tough guy.' (Neither were men.) Voters want to like her. So they finally let her open up - or it just happened - and she hit a nerve. But their strategy for attacking Obama keeps setting off other identity land mines. When they say he's inexperienced, younger voters hear them saying the young have nothing to offer. When they attack his eloquent words, the rest of us hear them advocating cynicism and corruption. If they don't wise up on that score, they're going to keep shooting themselves in the foot.
And I can't help it. After these results came in I started thinking I was pretty god-damned smart. Or, to paraphrase Wile E. Coyote: "RJ Eskow: Super. Genius." Maybe I wasn't that brilliant, but I now have a better track record than either Hillary's campaign advisors or the media pundits. I gave Hillary's campaign some suggestions a month ago: Drop the anti-idealism line, make Bill her 'Idealism Ambassador,' adopt global warming and electoral reform as campaign issues, defend Social Security, tell more jokes, emphasize the bench strength of her team, and share her personal dreams and aspirations with voters.
Not that they listen to guys like me, but they did do a few of those things: She told a couple light jokes, dropped anti-idealism and starting talking about 'change,' and in that now-famous emotional moment she shared her aspirations and motivations. That's only three of eight suggestions, and it saved her in New Hampshire. (RJ ... Eskow: Super ... genius ...)
Don't get on my case, people. I'm just kidding. Sorta. But while we're on the topic, I wrote on Monday that the press was doing Obama no favors by anointing him the candidate-in-waiting, that the race was far from over. And that they'd turn on Barack down eventually. ("The media giveth, and the media taketh away.")
That may not be brilliance, but it's more than the punditocracy was saying. Still, I had a moment of weakness. I had written this sentence: "If Hillary wins tomorrow, which she still could, or runs a decent second ..." Then I thought to myself 'Wait a minute: There isn't a single pundit or pollster who says she can win. You may think she can, but if you write that you'll look like an idiot." So I changed it to "If she runs a decent second ..."
In other words, I deferred to the same mean-spirited and wrongheaded group of people that spent all day Wednesday tracing the tracks of Hillary's tears. "She pretended to cry," said Bill Kristol in a typical comment, "the women felt sorry for her, and she won." Typical nasty, superficial punditry. It looked real to me, butif it was an act - then, man, she's really good, and the Kristols of this world should be praising her skill.
And to think I listened to these guys. I'll never make that mistake again.
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post
Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Hillary's moment came only after her loss in Iowa and what was then looking like a loss in N.H. In that situation, and considering her words at the time, her tears welled from self-pity and frustration, i.e., from an injured ego. Hillary claimed her welling up stemmed from her overwhelming desire to "help others" and her frustration that people failed to see that she, not Barack, should be the one who should lead this country. That revealed the worst, not the best, in human nature. While her crying evidenced an injured ego, her words evidenced an arrogant self-regard of entitlement, and more importantly, dishonesty -- whether that dishonesty was self-delusion or an intent to deceive others.
HA! So you admit it, ya helped Senator Clinton, told her how to win. Nice... real nice, turning on your own gender, working with insiders to boot.
What's this world coming to!?!
I'm becoming disillusioned. :) Agape.
35% budget cut.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
In support of my first opinion I offer the little laugh dubbed by the hysterical media the "Hillary cackle." That laugh was rehearsed and it was a calculated response to stupid questions. How should an interviewee respond to a question that is constructed as a choice between two positions neither of which allows a real answer and both of which require taking a position that is highly vulnerable. Some of the questions are akin to the classic: have you stopped beating your children?
The laugh was clearly calculated. Hillary is not a top notch actress. Her emotional moment was not an act.
As far as the significance of her little moment: stress, exhaustion, honest emotion, those are human and she has held up well.
PS - I would prefer to see Edwards get the nomination.
As the commentor above pointed out, 2% of America has voted. We have a candidate who is BEST on global warming, trade, workers rights,
and Iraq. John Edwards would be the most progressive candidate in decades AND his powerful performances in debates and on the stump would convince all kinds of independents and Republicans to vote for him--if he became the nominee. I think the two "front-runners" will prove less rather than more as candidates, and that the MSM is touting them in a not so secret agenda to keep the White House Republican. Let's let the American people decide, not the shills on television.
Look at these people.
I would say it was journalism 101, but it wasn't, it was a high-school class that taught everyone how to conduct a simple poll. It's not that tough, it doesn't have to be perfect, but... The ones we've been getting haven't been too perfect, have they? You go to a busy corner, and ask people... Get a team of people together, you get a bigger sample, and, get this, you have your own team to trust the results.
But these television personalities don't do that. They hire people they don't know, and expect to get perfection, as long as they pay a lot of money. Then you get Chris Mathews crying, "Garbage in, garbage out... Not my fault, I just said it, I didn't DO it."
They are worse than useless.
They have stood by and watched the administration remove and destroy the rights that Red Coats and the most powerful military of the time, couldn't wrest from our forefathers "idealistic" grasp... They are the shame of this country, and they have utterly failed at their mission, which they get our airwaves, for free, to accomplish.
But they sure are a pretty bunch of aristocrats.
Vote for your candidate!
.2% of America has voted.