Once again, at the last minute, against the odds, the Clintons’ enemies saved
them. In retrospect, we shouldn’t have been surprised. This is always the
Clinton pattern: nose-diving into certain defeat, only to be rescued by the
overkill of their enemies.
The arrogance of Newt Gingrich, when he became Republican Speaker of the House
of Representatives, served to pull Bill Clinton’s presidency out of a trough
in the 1990s. The prurience of Kenneth Starr, the special prosecutor who
went into the lurid details of his encounter with Monica Lewinsky, saved
Bill from political oblivion. So last week, the media’s gleeful and very
public expectation of the end of the Clinton dynasty gave the duo one more
life. The voters of New Hampshire realised they had the last chance to keep
the Clinton machine alive – and enough working-class and female Democrats
showed up to do it.
HILLARY had run a very smooth, competent campaign, aiming for a nomination by
acclamation . . . and in the end, it had fallen flat. She campaigned like
Dutch royalty, expecting deference while flaunting her “common touch”.
Everywhere she went, she told people of her “experience” and the
mind-numbing details of her policy proposals. She tried out several personae
and ended up with a perky blow-dried Mother Teresa shtick.
Always ahead in the polls, she smiled beatifically. “Ready From Day One” was
her slogan. She didn’t need Bill any more. She had the micro-trends of Mark
Penn, her pollster, to analyse and an intimidated media to ignore. When she
needed to give her campaign momentum, she ordered a full-court press by
appearing on all five Sunday morning shows. She even tried out a new laugh,
to “humanise” her. Pity it scared small children.
And then something strange happened. In a country that a huge majority
believes is on the wrong track, a message of benign, incumbent, experienced
competence didn’t quite work. In a country exhausted from the toxic
polarisation of the last eight years, reelecting the most divisive
politician in America didn’t seem so brilliant. And once the young and
dynamic Barack Obama proved there was much more to him than mere hype, you
could feel the momentum slipping away. The Clinton Restoration was not, it
turns out, that popular among Democrats.
Her national lead was due in large part to name-recognition and loyalty to her
husband, and when her campaign actually hit the ground, in Iowa, it
underwhelmed. The young saw her as a throwback. African-Americans began to
see the possibility of history being made elsewhere. Independents, never
that fond of Clinton, flocked to Obama. And once the news of Iowa broke, the
media exploded in a frenzy of relief and exuberance. The press has long
disliked the Clintons, especially the controlling, aloof and contemptuous
Hillary.
The thought of her being beaten by a young star was a thrill. The conservative
National Review ran a cover story, “The End of the House of Clinton”.
Newsweek put a saintly photograph of Obama on the cover. Every single media
outlet predicted an Obama landslide in New Hampshire. And then a couple of
teary, downcast photos started making the rounds. Clinton, like all
politicians in a corner, tried everything. In the last debate, she stopped
worrying about being “shrill” and snapped back angrily about her record of
trying to bring change over the years. And in the last 24 hours, the
always-composed, always-perfect Lisa Simpson of the Permanent Campaign
suddenly ceded to an emotional, vulnerable, desperate figure.
Some radio shock-jocks showed up at a rally and yelled “iron my shirt!” at
her. “Oh, the remnants of sexism are alive and well,” Mrs Clinton said,
asking for the lights to be turned up on the pranksters. In a now-famous
campaign slip, the canned laugh faded to an almost spontaneous crack in the
throat – not a cry, just the hint of a cry. On the day of the primary, the
vintage feminist Gloria Steinem declared Clinton the victim of sexist
double-standards. Hillary’s slogan, “Ready From Day One” – after swiftly
morphing into “Ready For Change” to ape Obama’s rallying cry – suddenly
became the equivalent of “I Am Weak. I Am Vincible. I Am Woman!” And
women, mainly working-class, middle-aged women who in their lives may have
seen younger, less experienced men promoted over more experienced women –
women who identified with Clinton’s harried, multi-tasked desperation on the
trail – shocked the pollsters and came out to vote. And so she lived to see
another political morning.
The first serious female candidate for president was forced to play the female
sympathy card to stay in the race. Thatcher would have died rather than do
such a thing. Ditto Merkel. But Clinton has never claimed to be above
anything. She is now the candidate of change, having discovered that that is
the message that resonates. She has padded her record to be able to be both
the pro-war candidate if the surge keeps its tactical success and the
antiwar candidate if Iraq’s civil war reignites.
For good measure, her surrogates had tried to keep the association of Obama
and cocaine in the air; and some volunteers were caught passing around
Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mails. I have no doubt that more mud on Obama will
emerge from the Clinton camp. In the last week in Iowa, Hillary also got her
husband and long-time political partner to go out aggressively on the trail
for her. He in turn used his former office and party clout to trash Obama as
a “kid”, his candidacy as a “roll of the dice” and his campaign promise of
hope a “fairy tale”.
As Maureen Dowd, the columnist, pointed out, the man from Hope ended up
campaigning against hope. You do what you gotta do. It would be easy to get
high-minded about this, but American politics is very hard to disentangle
from the web of identity – racial, sexual, religious, regional – that
distinguishes some Americans from others. As the first serious female
contender for president, it is not surprising that Clinton would at some
point resort to an appeal based on her gender. It’s just that few predicted
it would happen this crudely, this desperately and this soon.
WHAT’S more surprising is how carefully Obama himself has avoided any direct
racial appeals.
Although he doesn’t shy from his racial background, and sees it as integral to
his personal identity, he has not campaigned as a black candidate, or
explicitly called on his fellow African-Americans to support him on those
grounds. He represents a new generation of black politicians.
They are not angry identity-mongers like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Nor are
they conservative black leaders who refuse to engage with race or identify
with much of the black community – like Clarence Thomas, the supreme court
justice, or Shelby Steele, the academic and author.
They are both black candidates and postblack candidates. The governor of
Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, is one such. Obama has pioneered a different
kind of politics – past the toxicities of the 1990s into a more hopeful and
unifying message. In other words, Obama has yet to play the victim, as
Clinton has. He is an Oprah candidate, showcasing African-American
opportunity as much as African-American identity. He rebutted some of the
Clinton team’s attempts to link him with selling cocaine – but not by
instantly crying racism. He hasn’t framed a message to black voters alone.
Even when speaking to overwhelmingly black crowds, he always pitches his
message to all races. He is more Dr Martin Luther King than Malcolm X. Even
when he lagged behind Clinton by a large margin among African-American
voters, he never played the race card to claw any back. He knew that his
main problem was that black voters simply didn’t believe that a black man
could ever overcome racism sufficiently to become president. And Obama’s
strategy in countering that was to show, not tell. He believed that if he
was able to win Iowa, an overwhelmingly white state, with a unifying
message, that in itself would prove to black voters that he was viable
nationally.
It worked beautifully. And the day after Iowa, you could feel a sea-change in
African-American feeling and thinking. The polls in predominantly black
South Carolina swung dramatically in his favour. But as soon as a black
candidate gets this kind of critical mass, reaction is bound to follow. Some
serious pollsters believe that Clinton’s surprise victory in New Hampshire
may have had something to do with white voters suddenly panicking in the
face of a black frontrunner. Obama, to his credit, has carefully avoided any
such inference.
The minute he starts relying on racial excuses, the unique nature of his
candidacy evaporates. But the racial question doesn’t just hurt Obama. In
some ways, it helps him. In fact, it may be that race will now come to his
rescue just as gender just did for Clinton.
SURPRISINGLY, the Clintons and their allies have done a lot of the work for
him. Hillary’s citing Obama’s own acknowledged use of cocaine in the past
seemed racially loaded to some. And Bill used loaded language in New
Hampshire when he referred to Obama as a “kid”.
White Southerners who use terms for children about black men raise hackles
among African-Americans. They hear the emasculating word “boy” that was used
for so long on so many plantations. Donna Brazile, a black Democratic
operative and former Al Gore campaign manager, commented: “For him to go
after Obama using ‘fairy tale’, calling him a ‘kid’, as he did last week,
it’s an insult. And I tell you, as an African- American, I find his words
and his tone to be very depressing.”
Another critical leader among Afri- can-Americans in South Carolina,
Congressman James Clyburn, also voiced concern after Hillary tried to attack
the resonances that Obama has drawn with Martin Luther King.
In the final days of the New Hampshire campaign, she said: “Dr King’s dream
began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”
She was trying to argue that if Obama was King, she was Johnson. Not a good
move. Clyburn told The New York Times on Friday: “We have to be very, very
careful about how we speak about that era in American politics. It is one
thing to run a campaign and be respectful of everyone’s motives and actions,
and it is something else to denigrate those. That bothered me a great deal.”
He was also offended by the condescending tone of the former president: “To
call [King’s] dream a fairy tale, which Bill Clinton seemed to be doing,
could very well be insulting to some of us.”
Obama’s viability has raised serious hopes among black Americans – emotions
not felt for a very long time. For the Clintons to defuse this without
appearing to be dashing black aspirations is not an easy task.
They have built a very deep bond with African-Americans over the years, Bill
especially. But they have never been in competition with a black politician
before. To some black observers, it seems as if some liberal support for
black candidates stops when those black candidates really do become an equal
and a threat.
“The sense of entitlement reeked from Clinton during the Charlie Rose
interview,” wrote one black blogger recently about an angry appearance by
Bill Clinton on public television. “And, that is exactly why he, and his
wife, need to be sent packing . . . This is as nice as I can be. There was
another undercurrent in that interview, but maybe I’m too ‘sensitive’ as a
Black person and picked up on it. If any other Black folk saw the interview,
maybe they’ll tell me if they picked up on the undercurrent too . . .”
AND so Obama’s enemies may do for him in the next week or so what Clinton’s
enemies have done for her. Remember: this is still a Democratic primary
race, and minority voters have disproportionate clout, especially in the
South and Southwest.
So far, Obama has not played the race card, as Clinton has the gender. But
that is because it is not in his nature, and because he is still, despite
this week’s buzz, in a stronger position than the former first lady.
He has strong financing and a powerful organisation in the next caucus in
Nevada, where he just received the endorsement of the influential Culinary
Workers Union. In South Carolina, the next significant primary, he has seen
a wave of black support in the wake of Iowa.
Two, it seems, can play political jujitsu. And in the roiling, unpredictable
waters of identity politics, race may yet trump gender in the end.
I just wish Mr Sullivan would stop prevaricating. Come on Andrew get down off that fence. It's time you started demonising one candidate and canonising another.
Almost there, Dublin,
It is my hope that we in the United States have moved beyond simply voting for someone due to race or gender. I may be wrong. But I can only stress the need to neither vote FOR or AGAINST someone based solely on race and/or gender. If you do either, you have not given democracy a fair shake. This election is too important to squander away due to the fact that we refuse to vote for a candidate because we see them as different from ourselves. Nor should we blindly throw a vote someone’s way because they are more similar to us than the other candidates. Judge the character of each person as an individual and then start asking for answers to tough questions. We can not afford to make a mistake in this election. Do not waste the opportunity to effect a real and positive change.
RIchard, VA, USA
Well, the Obama Camp should invigorate the need to start afresh. In Australian Politics the word 'stale' and out of touch played a big part in getting rid of an entrenched 11 1/2 year government.
For a Nation of some 300 million, the entrenchment of the dynasties father and son, Husband and wife have infected the U.S too badly.
President Hillary, Seen as a crybaby when meeting Middle Eastern leaders is not a good thing at all, both in America's ability to bring peace to the reason, and the previous baggage and experience that they have in dealing with her husband, as most of the leaders (autocrats) are still there. Even more fodder for Islamic Extremists to feed from. Combined with being a New York Senator and many many speeches schmoozing up to the Jewish community there. Peace in the Middle East looks extremely unlikely with Hillary as president.
On top of it all, the autocrats know how to exhaust the Clintons diplomatically.
A very grave danger for U.S Foreign Policy,
David, Adelaide Australia,
One recurring theme among Clinton supporters is the idea that Obama lacks substance. Is it not a good idea to suggest that the country is in some kind of peril and that there is a need to aim for some consensus among the people on some of the important issues; climate change; war and the state of world economey terrorism etc. Is it also not a bad idea to look at the world from a new perspective? To Clinton business as usual seems to be the favoured option. It won't work. She has not got the ability to command the repect of a cross-section of the population of America and the world to change which is necessary for the very survival of humanity on this planet. Obama exhibits rare human qualities: forward looking, empathy for other peoples, refusal to harp on the past and more than anything else a feeling for the unique qualities of America as a nation which attracts people from all over the world to want to settle there. Contrast between Clinton and Obama is very clear.
sinna mani, london, uk
Dan in Iowa You made my day. J2
J2, Hudson, MA, USA
I love Barack Obama. Despite all the mud the Clinton's have thrown at him, he has not veered from his message, nor tried to play the sympathy card. His character has held up extremely well, and I only hope the American people will see the difference in character between what the Clinton's are doing and what Obama is doing.
Character is the most important trait any human being can have, including a president. Experience, as we have seen for the past eight years, can be a sure road to hell.
Dnaiel, Lansing, MI/USA
I wish I could take back my two votes I gave Bill Clinton. I was stupid then; I won't be this time.
Sidmore, USA, USA
Maybe at that moment in the NH debate Obama was thinking of HIllary more as a presidential candidate that's been saying anything and everything against him lately, and forgot for a moment that he needed to be more careful due to her gender, and how some people might perceive it.
Jeremy, New York,
Is the Times going to let Andrew Sullivan write a pro-Obama piece every single week? It's getting a little bit tedious...
Carl, Manchester,
Of course what is miisng from Sullivan's anaysis is any recongnition of class interest and models of conflict resolution in the "Democratic Party" presidential primary. For Andrew, as for many of his blogger brothern, the race resolves to an American Idol TV reality show. Could it be that many low income workers, especially women, want healthcare for their young more than identidy gratification out of the process? Is Barack or Hillary more likely to help them in a worsening economic climate?
Beware Andrew has played fast and loose in his account. Bill's "fairytale" refered to the PRESS coverage of Obama's Iraq position NOT Obama's campaign!
PRIMA FACIE: Until Andrew Sullivan grounds his political use of liberal conservative terminolgy in the cannons of J.S. Mill, Bertrand Russell, Ernest Barker, David Spitz, et al; his garbled right wing polictics of privilege and special claims lacks intellectual pith.
Thomas Rossetti, Pittsburgh, PA
In a sense, Clinton is attempting to (Jesse) "Jacksonize" Obama, acknowledge that like Jackson (and Sharpton), that he's useful for a rousing speech, but isn't (ever) "ready for primetime;" that he is another, great, black entertainer. But not a grown up.
Enough, already. Perhaps we see in all of this the Clinton's fear that their legacy will, in fact, merely be "Democratic Bushes." Bring on History.
Jim Meyer, Columbia, MO, USA
Mr. Sullivan's view of why Sen. Clinton did so much better than expected in New Hampshire is only one of many. Some think it's more likely that voters, especially women, were outraged by the media's vicious treatment of her.
It's also far from clear that her mildly teary moment was playing "the female sympathy card," at least from her perspective, although the media hyped that angle endlessly.
The notion that the Clintons are using racially "loaded language" about Sen. Obama is patently absurd. There's almost nothing they can say that won't be wilfully misinterpreted by Obama supporters such as Mr. Sullivan. Check his Daily Dish blog for a taste of the nasty swipes he routinely takes at them.
Many Americans are thoroughly disgusted by the media's obsession with the "race" and "gender cards" and with political tactics generally, real or imagined. We wish Mr. Sullivan and the rest would do a little work analyzing and reporting on the candidates' policy positions for a change.
Swift Loris, Long Branch, USA/NJ
Identity politics is a bad move. It worked for the Clintons in NH, but only because it looked like the serious first female candidate is about to be totally humilated, and many women didn't want to see that happen. Now that she's recovered it can only do her damage by alienating men. Looking forward the Clintons have stopped talking about gender, and instead talk about the economy, trying to enforce the idea that Obama is all grand talk, while Hillary is the one that really cares about People Like Us. Second, they want to make race an issue, which can only hurt Obama. Yes, it may hurt the Clintons with blacks, but more importantly it will hurt Obama with both whites and Latinos. Finally, they continue their attack on Obama's integrity, on the idea that with both sides arguing, many people will believe the truth is somewhere in the middle without bothering to check. The risk is that this opens the possibility for Obama to charge them with emulating Bush-Rove.
Never certain, London,
Mr. Obama might be a good--even inspiring--orator, but he is short on substance, not to speak of manners. Indeed, he has revealed himself on more than one occasion to be both condescending and graceless. Example: In the last debate Clinton very sweetly declared that she found Obama likable and didn't think she, herself, was that bad. Obama responded in a tone of near contempt, "You're likable enough, Hillary." What a smart aleck! Did he really think this would endear him to women?
In that same debate, clearly encouraged by the anti-Clinton media (including Mr. Sullivan, who spends 20 of 24 hours each day loading his blog with harsh critiques of everything she says/does/is), Edwards and Obama once again decided to double team Clinton. This time they went too far, and women responded with their votes.
Re race: Of course Obama has not "played the race card." Only by never appearing to be a threat to the white majority can Obama hope to win a majority of white votes.
Pat, El Cerrito, California
You know, in the old tv shows they would send the kid or husband after some hot water and towels when mom was in labor.(Mainly to get rid of him.) We haven't got to that part yet.
Dan, Iowa,