Last update - 00:00 11/01/2008
U.S. ELECTIONS: Doubts on McCain, Clinton's relevance cast too soon
By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent
In eight out of the last ten presidential elections in the United States the winner came from the party that showed the greatest agility and flexibility throughout the race. The New Hampshire primaries have shown us that it is far too early to predict which party will send the next president to the White House and that adaptability is definitely a strong suit.
Whoever counted out Hillary too soon, should probably hesitate to now do the same to Barack Obama. Whoever pronounced the John McCain campaign dead earlier in the year should wait to do the same to the fledgling Mitt Romney campaign.
This will be a long race, and will not come to an end before "Super Tuesday" on February 5th, if that early.
As of this morning, the story of the elections is no longer the American desire for "change," but rather the comebacks in each primary. Clearly, this should no longer be called "the year of change," but rather "the year of the comeback."
This is the year of Clinton, who has now defeated not only Obama but also the pundits and the soothsayers that had her all but finished. This is also the year of McCain, who proved that tough soldiers don't die easy.
Not only that, but "the year of change" has proven to be little more than a return to the status quo as two of the lead candidates are experienced, veteran senators from Washington who are older than their main rivalries. Supporters of Israel in the states will be able to breathe deeply if these are the candidates who receive their parties' nominations. It's not because the other candidates are weaker, but rather less well-known and it's harder to predict how they will handle issues that concern Israel.
The women of New Hampshire
Hillary's New Hampshire victory is easy to explain if we take a superficial look at statistics. To put it simply, the women of New Hampshire heavily favored Clinton, with 46% voting for the New York senator, and only 34% for Obama, giving Clinton the victory she couldn't muster in Iowa.
Her advisors, specifically her lead advisor Mark Penn have stated time and again that the female vote will help her win in the primaries and in the general election. After Clinton took New Hampshire, these advisors are starting to look downright prophetic.
On Tuesday, the day New Hampshire went to the polls, feminist icon and women's rights activist Gloria Steinem wrote an article in the New York Times stating that sexism was the reason for Hillary's recent struggles in the primaries. "What worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex," Steinem wrote, noting how African-Americans received the right to vote long before women.
The column sparked a serious debate, and in the evening, as the polls were near closing in New Hampshire, two prominent female political advisors took to the airwaves. Ann Louis, Clinton's head strategist, and Susan Rice, Obama's top foreign affairs consultant debated the issue of women and power and were quick to note that many countries, Israel included, have already had women as leaders. The question remains, will it turn out that the U.S. is still not ready for a female president?
Steinhem's column was written against the backdrop of several incidents that brought the issue of gender to the forefront in the race, helping Clinton. First off were the tears Clinton choked back on TV, whose tracks many said lost her some favor with men, and solidified her vote with women.
Candidate John Edwards said after the "sniffle heard 'round the world" that the spectacle proved Hillary is unfit to handle the pressures of being president, a statement many saw as being chauvinistic. Also, tabloid press attacks on Clinton have been seen as more cruel than the criticisms leveled at others, something that also may have garnered her more female sympathy and support.
The cascades of criticism and the lingering air of old-time sexism surely led many women in New Hampshire to the realization that the time has come for a female president, something that would be no less historic or groundbreaking than an African-American president.
The McCain Experience
The "change" offered by Obama, Romney, and Huckabee, is no different from the coded language already heard in the past from candidates that tried to shake the political mainstream.
In 1984, former Colorado senator Gary Hart tried to steal the
Democratic nomination from frontrunner and mainstream mainstay Walter Mondale under the banner of promoting "new ideas." Mondale then tried to show that the slogan was bereft of meaning saying that it reminded him of the ad campaign "where's the beef?"
This is the same approach that McCain and Hillary are taking to the slogan of "change" being tossed around by their competitors. They maintain that with all the talk of change, when it comes to details and the issues, their competitors come up short.
Nonetheless, both McCain and Clinton have a long, tough road ahead of them. McCain is facing what is expected to be a long, grueling week in Michigan against Romney, whose father was once governor of the Great Lake State. In South Carolina, Huckabee is leading in the polls and Rudy Guiliani appears to be the man to beat in Florida.
The question though, is where McCain can steal another victory riding on his New Hampshire momentum. Perhaps, if Romney is defeated in Michigan, he will withdraw from the race, but even that isn't certain.
What each candidates needs is to wrap up delegates for the summer conventions, something that Clinton far from ensured Thursday. Each candidate needs to continue to win more states, more delegates. Both Hillary and Obama will receive nine delegates from New Hampshire and Edwards will receive 4.
Clinton wants to build on her momentum with a victory in Nevada, something that will be more difficult now that Obama has wrapped up the endorsement of the Silver State's largest labor union.
As the race moves to South Carolina, where Obama is leading in the polls, we must continue to look forward, to Florida and on to Super Tuesday. If we've learned one thing so far, it's to never rule out a candidate until they've officially dropped out.
Echoing the infamous "Dewey defeats Truman" front-page blunder, the Weekly Standard last week had splashed across its front cover the headline "The Fall of the House of Clinton." Collectors may want to snatch that issue up, especially if Clinton's campaign continues to gain steam.
The tears of a Clinton
Bill Clinton, who told the American people he "feels your pain," and is no stranger to public displays of emotion, said that Hillary won on the tracks of her tears, which came close to streaming down her cheeks when she was asked by an undecided voter: How do you do it, how do you keep up?
Bill could be right, and that would also be a sign of the times. In 1972, when Ed Muskie was running for the Democratic nomination, the candidate had trouble holding back tears at the New Hampshire primaries after a verbal attack was made on his wife.
George McGovern defeated Muskie for the nomination, and many said the Maine governor's tears helped seal his loss.
The lesson in that case?
Presidents don't cry. Or maybe now they do.