While everyone’s still in shock about N.H., I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.
The polls in the final days showing Barack Obama with a double-digit lead in New Hampshire were not wrong, and I was not unreasonable – though a bit cocky – to gloat that the Clintons were history. Instead, what happened was 17% of New Hampshire voters made up their minds on Election Day. And Hillary Clinton’s huge gender gap suggests that last-minute media attacks on her “crying” swayed women to her side. Just like Iowa, New Hampshire voters said that change was more important than experience – which continues to be her Achilles heel as the race moves to Nevada and South Carolina. Last week, the New York Senator was in danger of losing because voters saw her as “Clinton” – the establishment candidate who will carry on a political dynasty when voters want something new. But on Election Day, enough came to view her as “Hillary” who would create change by becoming the first woman President. This explains the unexpected result, and the tide of public opinion can still shift back.
It’s hard to remember now (since in politics a week can be a lifetime), but two months ago Hillary Clinton was the prohibitive front-runner – who was supposed to grab the Democratic nomination by “inevitability.” Despite efforts by progressives to show that she is truly not one of us, people were just buying her campaign line. Women were flocking to her candidacy as a historic first, and attempts to re-invent herself as an “agent of change” were actually working.
But in late November, while campaigning for his wife in Iowa, former President Bill Clinton lied that he had always opposed the War. This moment reminded everyone what they didn’t like about the Clintons: their disdain for the Left and their efforts to minimize Iraq, and became a turning point in the campaign. Bubba’s visible presence on the campaign trail – and his inability to avoid the limelight – became the issue, as voters started seriously wondering whether they really wanted to start a dynasty.
On the day before the New Hampshire primary, right after her humiliating 3rd place finish in Iowa, two things events that could have had an enormous impact on the race. One was when Bill Clinton told a group of supporters that he “can’t make [Hillary] taller, younger, male” – debunking the notion that her status as a woman would make her a “change” candidate. It also exposed the former President as a jerk who only cares about himself, his legacy, and is delusional enough to think he can save her floundering campaign.
But not enough people heard about this – and the other campaigns never made it an issue. It had no impact on the result, which could have sealed the deal for Obama. What instead dominated the news coverage was the famous incident where Hillary Clinton cried. When asked by a reporter “how do you handle it,” she choked up and gave an emotional speech in a New Hampshire diner – which is very unusual for her to do while campaigning.
The media didn’t know what to make of this. Some compared it to the Howard Dean scream and said it made her look weak. Others questioned her sincerity, calling it a calculated, cynical move to make her look human. I had a different interpretation: it was real, and to suggest otherwise would be tasteless and cold. The Clintons were just cracking under pressure – after building their dynasty without standing for anything, the Democratic voters were rejecting their agenda. And Hillary was at a loss on what to do.
But the media’s reaction had a huge effect on women – especially middle-aged women – who generally felt that it was sexist and unfair. How dare you question whether her crying was sincere, they felt, and women did not appreciate the suggestion that it made her look weak and vulnerable. For months, my sister had complained to me that Clinton gets attacked in the media in a way that they would never attack a man. Enough came to see her as Hillary – not Mrs. Clinton – and decided that her status as the first woman president embodied “change.” So they voted for her as an “agent of change.”
Obama won Iowa by eight points, and beat Clinton among women by a 5-point margin. For women under 25, Clinton got a pitiful 11%. But in New Hampshire, women picked her by a 47-34 margin. Among older women, the gap was even wider — while she still lost women under 30. It would be way too simplistic – and sexist – to conclude that women voted for Hillary “because she cried.” But they voted for her because the media attacked her and questioned her about it, which backfired.
In what will go down as one of the stupidest moments in campaign history, John Edwards chose to respond to the crying incident. “I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve,” he said, “and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business.” You do not run against a female candidate – especially one as formidable as Hillary Clinton – and play that card. Someone should have told Edwards to just shut up.
Barack Obama was wise enough to stay above the fray, which hopefully means that he can pick up support among women. But Edwards took a hit from what happened, based on his poor third-place showing. While not all women were swayed to vote for Hillary Clinton, enough did. My hunch is that her last-minute support came from undecided women – or those who were supporting Edwards.
You know that Edwards really screwed up when Amanda Marcotte, an ex-blogger from his campaign, reacted like this: “Completely unacceptable amounts of sexism. It’s bad enough that the media plays the game with Clinton where if she shows any emotion, she’s too feminine or too scary, but if she’s more stoic, she’s a scary ballbuster, but to have her own party members (if political rivals) play that cheap sexist card is too much.”
But despite the surprising result, it’s naïve to assume that last night changed everything and voters will stay with Clinton as a “change” candidate. Just like Iowa, exit polls showed that 50% of New Hampshire voters picked change over experience. Enough women may have rallied to Hillary’s defense for now, but voters are still not comfortable with the idea of “another Clinton.” Especially if the former President keeps on drawing attention to himself.
Yesterday in New Hampshire, the ex-President again put his foot in his mouth. When asked about “judgment” at a campaign event when choosing a candidate, Clinton went on a three-minute rant that was defensive, angry and hostile. He again implied that he had always opposed the Iraq War. His contempt for Obama was visible, like his infamous interview on “Charlie Rose” last month. Bubba just can’t help making himself the issue, and it will hurt his wife.
Obama can still take the race to Nevada, South Carolina and Super Tuesday on February 5th – and a narrow defeat in New Hampshire could help him come back. The Culinary Workers Union is expected to endorse him today – which would make him competitive in Nevada. Blacks in South Carolina will still turn out for him. What could stop him is the media rushing to crown Hillary Clinton as the “inevitable nominee,” just like they do for every establishment candidate who gets an upstart challenger.
“Clinton should thank her lucky stars that the race didn’t end tonight,” said a friend of mine who had flown to New Hampshire to help get out the vote. An Obama victory would have done exactly that, for two back-to-back victories would have ended the Clinton dynasty. But Clinton’s narrow victory in the Granite State, though unexpected, will not. We’ll just get tired of hearing she’s the “Comeback Kid.”
Send feedback to [email protected]