Three Tears In A Bucket and the "Girlfriend" card
The pundits are having a field-day trying to dissect what happened to the Obama campaign in New Hampshire two days ago. After his "stunning" victory in Iowa -- stunning to whom, exactly -- it was assumed, and polled, that Mr. Obama was a steamroller, fixin' to flatten any obstacles on his way to the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States.
So, what went wrong?
After Iowa, Obama was polling some 15 percentage points ahead of the former First Lady. Then, at the last campaign debate before voting, John Edwards -- in an effort to save his own flagging campaign -- tried to take Mrs. Clinton out to the woodshed, attacking her without mercy. Par for the course, right? Obama adopted the "above-the-fray" statesman role, since he was in the catbird seat. Then it started: there was a question directed to Hillary about her not getting the "likability" vote, to which see responded half-jokingly that such things "hurt her feelings."
The following Monday, with Obama still ahead in almost all polls, Clinto was campaigning at a local diner. When a gentle question from a woman in that coffee shop - "How do you do it?" -- was posited, everything changed. At that very moment, there was a noticeable sheen to Clinton's eyes.
And a tear seemed ready to fall...
That's when it happened. That's when the gender and "girlfriend" card had been played. You can almost hear it from women throughout New Hampshire: "Oh, girlfriend, I am soooo sorrry..." Well that might be a too ethnic, but you get my drift.
Calculated? Maybe. Effective? Most certainly.
The upshot is that women, who went with Obama by a nearly 2-to-1 margin in Iowa, abandoned him, and went by something like 70-30 for Mrs. Clinton. That, friends, was more than enough for the margin of victory.
So what are we to make of this? That women, are going to abandon the logical evaluation of candidates for the capriciousness of emotion? Because Clinton shed a tear, and showed she was indeed a woman, and not an automaton, she suddenly became the darling of New Hampshire?
I am, to say the least, disturbed by this turn of events predicated on emotion, and a tear.
Flip-flop things and say that Obama was attacked -- as he has been -- during which he pauses, with dour face, to respond "That hurts my feelings." Then, while on the trail, a dude says "yo, bruh, how do you do it?" (not referring to pimping), and Obama's lips tremble and his eyes water.
What would happen?
I'll tell you what would happen: He'd be out of presidential contention faster than two virgins getting naked to screw on prom night. Or, certainly faster than that tear could roll down his face.
Politics is a blood-sport. Carnage is part of it's appeal. There's no place for tears in the arena.
Women, don't do it to yourself. Don't fall for the okey-doke. You all are the (really) silent majority. It's really in your hands, the direction this country will go in over the next four to eight years. You're being played if you think that just because another woman cries, she's worthy of the sympathy you'd give. Perhaps she's brought her misfortune, causing tears, upon herself. In any case, if all it takes is some tears to convert a woman from one candidate to another, we're in mighty big trouble as a nation.
So, what went wrong?
After Iowa, Obama was polling some 15 percentage points ahead of the former First Lady. Then, at the last campaign debate before voting, John Edwards -- in an effort to save his own flagging campaign -- tried to take Mrs. Clinton out to the woodshed, attacking her without mercy. Par for the course, right? Obama adopted the "above-the-fray" statesman role, since he was in the catbird seat. Then it started: there was a question directed to Hillary about her not getting the "likability" vote, to which see responded half-jokingly that such things "hurt her feelings."
The following Monday, with Obama still ahead in almost all polls, Clinto was campaigning at a local diner. When a gentle question from a woman in that coffee shop - "How do you do it?" -- was posited, everything changed. At that very moment, there was a noticeable sheen to Clinton's eyes.
And a tear seemed ready to fall...
That's when it happened. That's when the gender and "girlfriend" card had been played. You can almost hear it from women throughout New Hampshire: "Oh, girlfriend, I am soooo sorrry..." Well that might be a too ethnic, but you get my drift.
Calculated? Maybe. Effective? Most certainly.
The upshot is that women, who went with Obama by a nearly 2-to-1 margin in Iowa, abandoned him, and went by something like 70-30 for Mrs. Clinton. That, friends, was more than enough for the margin of victory.
So what are we to make of this? That women, are going to abandon the logical evaluation of candidates for the capriciousness of emotion? Because Clinton shed a tear, and showed she was indeed a woman, and not an automaton, she suddenly became the darling of New Hampshire?
I am, to say the least, disturbed by this turn of events predicated on emotion, and a tear.
Flip-flop things and say that Obama was attacked -- as he has been -- during which he pauses, with dour face, to respond "That hurts my feelings." Then, while on the trail, a dude says "yo, bruh, how do you do it?" (not referring to pimping), and Obama's lips tremble and his eyes water.
What would happen?
I'll tell you what would happen: He'd be out of presidential contention faster than two virgins getting naked to screw on prom night. Or, certainly faster than that tear could roll down his face.
Politics is a blood-sport. Carnage is part of it's appeal. There's no place for tears in the arena.
Women, don't do it to yourself. Don't fall for the okey-doke. You all are the (really) silent majority. It's really in your hands, the direction this country will go in over the next four to eight years. You're being played if you think that just because another woman cries, she's worthy of the sympathy you'd give. Perhaps she's brought her misfortune, causing tears, upon herself. In any case, if all it takes is some tears to convert a woman from one candidate to another, we're in mighty big trouble as a nation.
1 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Three Tears In A Bucket and the "Girlfriend" card.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.obsidianhustle.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/129
» More Tears (Or Three Tears In A Bucket, Part Deux) from The Hustle
I submit that for a woman running on her independent apability to handle the pressure of the most important job in the entire Free World, she's not making herself look up to the task, weeping at a warm introduction by an old friend at a campaign event.... Read More
i don't know man...
i think that's pretty harsh to say that women only voted for her on a sympathy vote. personally, i'm kind of tired of rock star obama. it's like this dude has been in the senate for like 2 or 3 years and all of a sudden he's the only hope for America! give me a break!
Yeah, if he wins the primary, i'm voting for him, but i'm like what the hell is hillary do to piss everybody off? it's like folks act like hillary is the devil and everything she does is calculated. and truly, i don't know, but that's just as bad as obama using oprah to get the "girlfriend" vote! it's all politics! you use what you have in your arsenal to touch the folks.
and it's just amazing to me how every time i see them in the media, obama is the best thing since jesus himself and hillary is the devil incarnate! personally, i'm glad she brought this back to being a real contest. i'd like to see more debate and see HIM be more challenged on some issues rather than skating through as this big media darling!
it's time to take out the boxing gloves and fight it out til the END!
Welcome Aboard Lynn!
I'd agree it would be harsh to posit that Hillary got the woman vote because of the near-tears, except that is what many WOMEN in New Hampshire stated as part of their case to vote for her. They said her reactions made her appear "human," whatever that means. (I thought she always appeared human: bright, intelligent and very focused). But what I think they meant was she was "one of them"
And the truth is, several of Hillary's big money female supporters were trying to jump off her train because they thought she was done for after Iowa. But she got new life after the "welling of emotion."
"Clinton won resoundingly among registered Democratic women and was far more competitive among Independent women," than in Iowa. And according to EMILY'S List voting director Maren Hesla, "It's easier to be rooting for Senator Clinton when you see part of yourself in her," Hesla says. "She let us see her exhausted, a little bit overwhelmed, not doing well enough."
Hillary's margin of overall victory was about 2.5 points (or about 6,000 votes) in NH. Her margin of victory among women was 12 points. It might not be nice to hear, but the fact is, women, and their perception that Hillary was getting beat up and "picked on" were the deciding factor.
As for Hillary pissing folks off, I think there are two major factors at play:
True liberal Dems were disturbed by this because many of them view Hills record in congress as not nearly liberal enough -- she's seen as too centrist -- especially on the war:
a. she voted for the Iraq war in the beginning, never apologized for the vote after it was clear she (and Bush and other supporters) were wrong
b. Hillary was prepared to give the president authority to attack Iran
c. She never really tried to end the war as aggressively as libs wanted.
d. That she's got no firm beliefs that she articulates.
And those same people were hood-winked, and continue to be so, by the health care lobby who made her National Healthcare Plan out to be "socialized medicine" in 1994, which it was not. (But Hillary will admit, she didn't handle the whole thing correctly -- inexperience in the ways of Washington).
And lastly, that she's got no firm beliefs that she articulates.
So, she's got enemies on both sides.
In Obama's defense, he didn't court Oprah's endorsement. She gave it. And that endorsement is catching Oprah quite a bit of flak. (I posted on it last month). Plus, it remains to be seen how Oprah's largely white, female fans will actually vote.
The turn of events is the best thing that could have possibly happened for both candidates. This way, we voters can have a real chance to evaluate both candidates and scrutinize them, rather than having one of them more or less declared the winner before we even get to Spring.
Were Hillary's tears a calculated maneuver by a politician that had lost some of her steam? I lean towards yes, maybe I lean that way because I'm a cynic or maybe I lean that way because I know that politics is politics and the only thing that matters is getting the vote and not how you get the vote - what wouldn't these people do to court favour. Either option is sad.
I don't think it is particularly harsh to say that Hillary's tears swayed women voters that once saw her as an emotionless steam roller. Women hate illogically, why not love and embrace illogically as well - reality television depends upon it, which isn't to say that men are immune to this particular human frailty. Should people rise above emotional reactions when it comes to politics and vote the issues, vote for the future, vote for a better world, well yes, but the reality of life doesn't always make it so.
Imagine if John Kerry had knocked back a six-pack, groped a woman, and killed a lion with a semi-automatic weapon or better yet with his bare hands - I bet that would have quieted a lot of the irrelevant talk that he wasn't fun enough or man enough to be President. Image matters, it always has and sadly, maybe it always will.
Logic doesn't play enough of a part in the way people vote and every once in a while the campaigning and the voting smells quite a bit like high school popularity contests.
A lot of people wonder what Hillary has done to make people hate her so and while all the listed points are what make people feel that way, I'd point to her stint as First Lady. The truth is she's never been very popular despite my belief that she is more than capable of running this country and making some positive changes, but I would say the same of Obama - the capable part not the disliked part, because most people just talk about his newness and his inexperience as a negative and I'm not really buying that argument any longer.