Choosing the Democratic Nominee: It's a Visceral Thing

by Damozel | "I'm voting for Hillary," said my mother, who has announced that she would prefer to be referred to on the internet, if I must refer to her at all, as "the Southern lady."

For Hillary?  Hillary Clinton?  My mother has never voted for a Democrat in a presidential campaign in my lifetime.  But "I don't vote for the party; I vote for the man," said the Southern Lady (b. 1928).  "I just think she's the best one for the job."   

So maybe the Hillary campaign really has been successful in de-genderizing their candidate.  I don't see any pigs roosting in trees, but my mother's calm announcement that she preferred a candidate she used to despise shows that somewhere along the line Hillary did manage to change the mind of one formerly Republican-only-voting Southern Lady.  What changed her mind?  She doesn't know. "I just think she's the best one."  Of such visceral responses is the ordinary voter's final voting booth decision made.

Which is why these polls are so useless, especially in this campaign.  Edwards, Obama, or Clinton?  I shift from day to day.  I'd be happy with any of them, though if pressed to choose, I'm a "better the devil you know" sort of person, and I don't really feel I know Obama. 

So between Edwards and Hillary, which?   It depends on my mood and the weather.  I might not really know for sure till I get to the voting booth which one I'll choose. 

For this reason, Charles Krauthammer might have a point when he says, "The Democratic primary campaign has been breathtakingly empty. What passes for substance is an absurd contest of hopeful change (Obama) vs. experienced change (Clinton) vs. angry change (John Edwards playing Hugo Chávez in English)." (WaPo)   They really aren't all that far apart on the issues.  They're having to fall back on trying to distinguish themselves in other respects.

My mother doesn't like John Edwards, even though he is a Carolina boy from right up the road.  Why?  "He reminds me of a car salesman," she said.  "John Edwards reminds you of a used car salesman?" I repeated.  "No," she says, "Not a used car salesman.  A regular car salesman."  She's not accusing him of pushing a shoddy or unreliable product, she meant, and she doesn't even think he is insincere; she just thinks he'll do anything to talk her into buying what he's selling.   And though I couldn't disagree more, I don't know what to say to persuade her otherwise.  It's a visceral thing. 

According to Dan Balz at The Washington Post, a lot of  Democrats don't quite trust Edwards.  Why?  It's a visceral thing.

Edwards has offended many Democrats with his candidacy. They question his authenticity and see his shift from optimism to anger as the sign of an opportunistic politician. He and his most loyal supporters argue that that's not the case, that the Edwards of 2008 is a reflection of a changed country and his and his wife's changed personal situation (WaPo) .

I like his anger; I think it suits him much better than the role of smiling sidekick to John Kerry. And I don't really care if it is "authentic"; it's the right response for the times.  But it feels authentic to me.  Why wouldn't an intelligent person of good faith, focusing on the issues that Edwards has focused on, be furious? 

On the other hand, in a campaign like this one, momentary missteps can cause an instant shift in a voter's internal gauge.  For example, his response to Hillary's "melting snowflakes" moment still makes me livid:

Edwards, speaking at a press availability in Laconia, New Hampshire, offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to bring into question Clinton's ability to endure the stresses of the presidency. Edwards responded, "I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business." (HuffPost)

More than anything else I've seen or heard him say, this made me see the trial lawyer in Edwards.  It didn't need saying.  A gracious response would have looked far stronger than an attempt to reap an advantage from Hillary's momentary "lapse."  Kicking someone who was already down is the tactic of bully.  And I may favor Edwards with my vote, but that doesn't mean I don't still love Hillary.

I wonder if some of the New Hampshire voters were similarly put off by his response.  It's a visceral thing.

Obama got it right that time.  He said:  "I didn't see what happened, I know this process is a grind.  So that's not something I care to comment on." (Feministing)

Though I'm angry with him as well because he had a go at her too.  Krauthammer of all people provides a description that comes closer to what I saw than any other one I've read: .

This "Hillary cried, Obama died" story line is satisfying, but it overlooks an earlier moment played to a national television audience of 9 million that was even more revealing.

It showed a side of Barack Obama not seen before or since. And it wasn't pretty. Asked in the Saturday Democratic debate about her dearth of "likability," Clinton offered an answer both artful and sweet -- first demurely saying her feelings were hurt and mock-heroically adding that she would try to carry on regardless, then generously conceding that Obama is very likable and "I don't think I'm that bad."

At which point, Obama, yielding to some inexplicable impulse, gave the other memorable unscripted moment of the New Hampshire campaign -- the gratuitous self-indicting aside: "You're likable enough, Hillary." He said it looking down and with not a smile but a smirk.

Rising rock star puts down struggling diva -- an unkind cut, deeply ungracious, almost cruel, from a candidate who had the country in a swoon over his campaign of grace and uplift. The media gave that moment little play, but millions saw it live, and I could surely not have been the only one who found it jarring.(WaPo)

No, Charles Krauthammer, you surely were not.  In fact, this response seemed to me far more cutting than Edwards' to the melting snowflakes incident.  While Edwards' response seemed like ordinary calculated political opportunism---unworthy of him and also unattractive, but easy enough to see through---Obama's grudging concession had a personal edge that made it seem far more wounding.  But it was a two-edged weapon, since in cutting her down to size it also diminished him. 

I still hate both him and Edwards just a little for the Hillary-baiting.  They both need to find some way to make me prefer them that doesn't involve attacking her or one another.  Those attacks might make the opponent look bad but the attacker always looks worse. 

In a race where personality is likely to be so important, none of the candidates can afford to show a nasty or petty side. We're Americans; we have to like our candidates or at least feel that they are decent human beings.  It's a visceral thing.

MEMEORANDUM HERE.

RELATED POSTINGS

• Maureen Dowd's Vicious Attack on Hillary:  Internalized Misogyny or Something Much More Basic?
• The Reports of Their Deaths Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
• Hillary & The Politics of Change versus The Politics of Gender; Update:  Bill Clinton Strikes Back  
• MSNBC on the Media: Gunning for Hillary, Worshiping Obama 

Comments

[Greg Qualtheim]

Hillary-baiting? Sad, no doubt, but I don't let her off the hook just because she's the worm. She's far too smart to have be caught off guard, to have not joined in the fray willingly, to have not baited Obama and Edwards herself. Kudos to her for pulling it off, but no sympathy.

[tokyo ex-pat]

I wonder how many older women want to see a female president in their lifetime. I can understand that. I'd like to see a women in the White House as well as a person of color. Ironically, I'm casting my ballot for Edwards in California. His message resonates with me in a way the other two don't. If they win the primary, I'll support them, but as long as he's in the race, he's got my vote.

Btw, on the Hillary slam. I wasn't as PO'd at Edwards. The day before (in NH), Hillary had gotten off a shot at the Edwards campaign just after they'd had their health care forum in which Nataline S.' (can't remember the spelling; the 17yr. old liver transplant case rejected by Cigna, then overturned only to die) parents stood up for Edwards. As a man who had also lost a child, I think Hillary's slam hit a sore spot. That on top of being on another 36 hour tour where he probably gets little sleep, made me a bit more forgiving for foot in mouth. He said at first no comment. Then segued into that statement. Many were ticked at him and still are, I think his policies are too important to hold hostage to one gaffe.