And was the result what all of them expected or wanted? (Note: all this assumes that Hillary won fair and square in, around and to the northeast of Manchester and the NH DEM machine didn't rig the vote count.)
For the record, at this time in US history, I’ve had no doubt that a woman or any minority could win the Presidency. After eight years of GWB, a Republican win has been in the impossible dream arena . However, I’m hard pressed to view Hillary as a success story for women or Barack as a success story for African Americans. Yet, of the two, Obama’s candidacy sends nothing but a positive, non-stereotypical message to African Americans; whereas, embedded in Hillary’s campaign is the message that women still need to marry the right man.
While most of the chattering classes in the days after Iowa focused on "change," the McCain comeback from the crypt and tears, what I began hearing within minutes of the Iowa results was the drumbeat of racism. Even though Obama is older than Bill Clinton and JFK were when they won the Presidency (Lincoln was only 52 and FDR only 51) that didn’t stop the Clinton and Edwards camps from strongly suggesting that Obama is too young. Too inexperienced. Exactly what is the basis for such a claim?
He’s run for and won more political campaigns than either of the other two and has more years in public office than either of them. Is being First Lady or a successful personal injury attorney more valuable experience for President than being a community organizer, constitutional law professor or editor of the Harvard Law Review? One glance at what each of the three said in the run-up to the Senate’s vote on the Iraq War Resolution is enough to inform me which experiences were the most valuable.
As a feminist who began reading Ms. Magazine in its first year of publication, Gloria Steinem’s article on the Presidential primary saddened me. First, one need look no further than the US Senate for evidence that white women in America do not face more obstacles to political success than African Americans. Women may not have reached parity with men, but they’re doing a hell of a lot better than African Americans. Second, all things being equal, gender or ethnicity may tip the scale in selecting a candidate for political office. However, hardly ever are all things equal and I’ll be damned if I’ll bias my assessment because a candidate is a woman. How did it happen that so many feminists of a certain age have become so vagina-centric that women must vote of Hillary? How is that different from the evangelicals flocking to a rather stupid preacher?
Or was Ms. Steinem’s piece thinly disguised racism? Is Obama too young because black men don’t mature as quickly as white guys from the backwater of Arkansas? But the most frequently heard question both camps began planting after Iowa was "is a black man electable?" Not that anyone posing the question was racist or thought that that answer was no. They were just saying. Saying to sow seeds of doubts among those who may not have all of their own considered or pondered the question well enough.
The official New Hampshire primary story is that women in the last few hours of the campaign were moved by Hillary’s tears. This conforms with what white women outside the south are willing to admit to themselves. Plus even her campaign knows that when she appears to be the victim, her support increases. It effect was seen in her Senate debate with Lazio and in the aftermath of Bill’s dalliance with Lewinsky. Thus, the storyline can’t be wholly dismissed.
Yet, is it the complete story? Or merely the icing on the cake? This past week reminded me that the Clintons aren’t above the race card. Sister Souljah, Lani Guinere and welfare reform are three prior ones. How can anyone ignore this?
More disheartening than the Clinton camp selling its soul for a win is those in the Edwards camp who did it for nothing. (NH polls from 12/20 forward were consistent with his third place 17% finish). The decoded version of the longstanding meme pushed by the Edwards camp is that a southern white male is the most electable. That’s sexist and politically naïve. Adding "can a black man win?" to their arsenal completes the portrait of how low they will go. (Once again the beneficiary of Nader, Moore, et. al injecting themselves into a Presidential race is a win for the most solid corporatist. Makes one wonder what their real agenda is and why any liberal/progressive ever listens to them.)
Until now, I’ve been undecided about who, if anyone, I would vote for in the primary. Neither Clinton nor Edwards were on my short list. But as I could never reward anyone in anyway for playing the race card, now I will never vote for either at anytime. If Hillary is the nominee, the Democratic Party and country can sell its soul without my participation. I could say the same about Edwards but that would be hollow since Edwards will not get the nomination. Thus, the only way I can punch back, as puny as the strike may be, is to give Obama my money and vote.
More deeply disturbing is that playing the race and woman as victim cards within the Democratic Party may have opened the door for the GOP. Democrats will look like hypocrites if they cry foul when the GOP plays one of those cards in the general election race, depending on who gets the nomination. While it’s never a good idea to discount racism in American politics, my guess is that New Hampshire tainted Hillary the most. Those tears may have been a double edged sword. For every woman it attracted to her, an equal number of independent men may have been further turned off. Even though opposition to Hillary among the rightwing and evangelical bases (there’s overlap between the two but not 100% concordance) couldn’t be higher, their blind loyalty to the GOP has been weak in this election cycle. The evangelicals have said no to Romney, Guiliani and McCain. Just as Democrats can’t win without a portion of independent men and the leftwing, the GOP can’t do without motivated evangelicals. I can see the tears as being the catalyst to softening the opposition to McCain (the least objectionable consensus candidate available to them) as the evangelicals smell the possibility of another win and come home to the GOP one more time.
Unlike many Democrats, I didn’t see McCain as the most formidable GOP candidate in 2000. He wouldn’t have motivated the evangelical base, nor, against Gore, would he have captured as many of those squishy "moderate" women as GWB did. In national polls and as he floundered in the primary, McCain has consistently run well against Hillary and honestly against McCain with a motivated rightwing, it’s now difficult for me to see that she could draw in enough men and sufficiently motivate the left enough to win. The damage the Hillary and Edwards factions have done to Obama may not be as severe, but it cannot be wholly repaired. Against McCain, Edwards could easily be the least viable Democratic candidate. The GOP may have lost its mojo, but painting Edwards as an inexperienced, flip-flopper embraced by left-wing wackos isn’t a tall order. Good lord, Democrats may yet have found another way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.