Democratic Doings in New Hampshire
Filed under: US Elections
New Hampshire went to the polls to choose presidential candidates in the nation's first primary election yesterday. Hillary Clinton, just like her husband before her, became the "comeback kid" (she actually won, her husband only came in second in 1992, but still claimed victory in a classic bit of Slick Willy) and John McCain once again fueled the flames of hope that this nation might once again have a real foreign policy.
As an excellent analysis on Pajamas Media points out, many pundits (including William Kristol) were left with a bit of egg on their faces, having predicted Obama would be anointed in New Hampshire based on polling data that proved utterly false. Clinton squeaked by him 39-36. What these pundits failed to remember is that while Clinton may be weak, Obama may be even weaker. The American people have always demanded elected executive experience from their presidents since JFK (who didn't have it and didn't live out his first term), and Clinton is much more associated in the public mind with that kind of experience than Obama (which is not to say, of course, that her claims to it are legit -- as we've said before, they're inherently fraudulent and harmful to feminism, as was her recent bout of sobbing).
Don't forget: the last time the Democrats nominated a man without executive experience (John Kerry), they lost. The time before that they nominated a Veep, and they won (Gore took the popular vote, though getting edged out in the electoral college). You may say: What about Dukakis? He was a governor who lost. But he lost to a vice president, and the kicker is that it's much better to be a governor from a non-Northern state (Clinton, Carter, Bush). Northern credentials undermine the nominee, another point of vulnerability for both Obama and Clinton (as well as, of course, Giuliani and Romney, and a major factor explaining Huckabee's success).
Obama showed remarkable weakness last night. The polling errors in his favor only served to undermine the quality of illusion that surrounds him. He's an unqualified paper tiger, and nothing anyone says will change that. His fans repeatedly make reference to the quality of his oratory -- a telling indicator that there's little beneath the surface to praise. New Yorker editor David Remick wrote in a recent editorial:
After two thousand five hundred and thirty-nine days of the failed and benighted Administration led by George W. Bush, the victory of Barack Obama in Iowa last Thursday night -- and the embracing speech he delivered in Des Moines to celebrate -- was a thrillingly hopeful, and potentially transformative, moment in American political life. Obama distinguished himself in a talented field by pulling in young voters who normally disdain the ballot box and Republicans and Independents who normally disdain Democrats, and by offering an increasingly clear vision of a way out of the moral and policy depredations that have brought the national spirit to its lowest ebb in memory.
This is classic gibberish from a blathering liberal. Over 60% of Iowa voted against Obama. If he needs to rely on young voters and Republicans to win, his goose is cooked. There's no connection between pretty words and pretty policies, no matter how much the humanities gurus at the New Yorker might like to think otherwise. If they ran the country, we wouldn't even have got around to adding a 14th state.
Still, as commenter (and outlaw?) Josey Wales wrote our last post, the right has little to fear from Clinton either. JW stated: "I think Clinton would be easier to beat than Obama, but I'd rather not take that chance." He echoes the feeling that Clinton will, better than anyone, probably better than any Republican, mobilize the Republican base, which views her with seething contempt. With two governors and the mayor of the nation's largest city in the race, the Republicans have a strong staging ground against the Democrats, who are foolishly focusing on three Senators.
Moreover, it's obviously good news for Republicans that the Democrats have a horse race on their hands, as this will force the two candidates to savage each other and squander their precious financial resources, rather than unifying to go after the vulnerable Bush legacy. The Democrats have two fundamentally weak candidates fighting each other. That's got to make them feel comfy.
What was actually "thrillingly hopeful" was to see a true American hero like McCain fight back from the brink of elimination, holding out the possibility that we would see America stand up to the malodorous horror that is the neo-Soviet Union. But in the end, New Hampshire settles nothing. The state failed to correctly identify the Democratic nominee in 1992 (chose Tsongas), 1984 (chose Hart) and 1972 (chose Muskie). It failed to ID the Republican nominee in 2000 (chose McCain), 1996 (chose Buchanan) and 1964 (chose Cabot Lodge). In 2000, neither primary winner received a majority of the state's delegates, though both McCain and Kerry were close. The judgment of a state that would choose a lunatic like Pat Buchanan must be questioned, although the state did pick Muskie over the even loopier McGovern, who the nation actually nominated.
So maybe what's most thrilling of all is just to see American democracy in action. We rapidly move from West (Iowa) to East (New Hampshire) then North (Michigan) and South (Carolina). We include two different forms of voting at the outset (caucus and primary) and we vote to choose the candidates -- contrast this with the anti-democratic apocalypse that is today's Russia, where the people don't choose the candidates and there are no true rivalries among the parties. Never once in all of Russia's long history has an election passed power from one rival party to another, something America has done many times without national breakdown (indeed, we even did it during the midst of a civil war!). No matter which side of the fence you are on, you should stop and smile with pride a moment at the vibrancy of our national decision-making.
God bless America!