So Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary. An upset, really, of historical proportions. All of the polls had her down, the pundits were frothing with misogynist rage (more on that later), rumors of Clinton's withdrawal from the race circled the Inter Tubes.
And she won.
As billcoop4 mentioned in last night's post, the polls weren't wrong - about Obama's support. Over at pollster.com, the last poll estimated Obama would win about 36 percent of the vote. Obama won 36 percent of the vote in the primary. On the other hand, the polls were way off about Clinton's eventual tally. That same last estimate showed Clinton winning about 30 percent of the vote. That was off by nine points: she ended up with 39 percent of New Hampshire's Democratic votes.
So, why the last-minute surge for Senator Clinton?
Women. Women won this primary for Hillary Clinton. That's what I see, anyway, from the difference between the numbers in the Iowa entrance poll and the New Hampshire exit poll. In Iowa, 23 percent of women Democrats were planning to vote for Clinton; in New Hampshire, 46 percent said they opted for the New York Senator. In short, Clinton's support among women doubled from Iowa to New Hampshire.
We can only speculate why, of course. Was an age gap? Did more young women come out to the Iowa polls? And New Hampshire women were in the older demographic more favorable to Clinton? Was it an economic gap? Were the Iowa women Obama supporters new voters, and the New Hampshire women Clinton supporters stalwart Democrats? Or did something break, psychologically, that drove women of all ages and allegiances to Clinton?
And then there was also this op-ed from Gloria Steinem on the eve of the election, which provided the intellectual justification for opting for Clinton on the basis of gender:
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects "only" the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more "masculine" for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren't too many of them); and because there is still no "right" way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
[snip]
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of "playing the gender card" when citing the old boys' club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn't.
The op-ed was pooh-poohed by conservative bloggers, but what Steinem wrote resonated with women. At least the women I know, not all of them Clinton supporters, and now all more open to voting for the New York Senator.
And isn't it possible - or even probable -- that's Hillary Clinton's cool public persona ("robotic" in some circles) is a result of her handlers' worry that a woman can neither appear too emotional or personable ("weak") or too forceful or strong ("bitch")? And ditto with embracing a too progressive agenda?
In person, Clinton is one of the warmest politicians I've ever met, but her advisers have stripped what personality she has, hiding it from the public. Some of that may be a product of her team's legendary paranoia, somewhat understandable given the knives out for her. But what remains is a heartless, passionless machine, surrounded by the very people who ground down the activist base in the 1990s and have continued to hold the party's grassroots in utter contempt.
Do the tears, then, and Clinton's subsequent primary win signal the Senator's breakout from her handlers, and the emergence of her inner liberal progressive? The current political landscape is different than it was in the 1990s; does Clinton know? If she does break out, it will be a wonderful transformation, a return to belief and hope and idealism. That would be something.
As for women - and some men, no doubt - siding with Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire in reaction to the vileness found, especially on the right, who just love to frame character in tired, old notions of gender ("limp-wristed pussy," anyone?), maybe New Hampshire was a liberation of sorts, a throwing off of the yoke of institutionalized sexism, a "fuck you" to Washington DC, the media, and the angry homophobic conservatives (check out the Bill Moyers' segment on the anti-Clinton rhetoric for examples) who have dominated our public discourse for the last decade and a half.
Enough is enough, said the voters.
In the end, even if Obama or Edwards or Richardson wins this thing, I think 2008 will mark a watershed of sorts, where Americans - and especially the media - will be forced to reconsider the notions of race and gender and class. And that's a good thing.
There was a large number of women who came out for Clinton, flipping around what happened in Iowa.
I've got another phrase for you: blue collar Democrats. Iron that.
But there are also those who haven't voted yet, including so many readers and listeners around here, who have been watching the misogynistic spectacle spewing from the traditional media that was enough to plug a volcano. Then there are those wonderful modern men, all of you wonderful hunks, like eriposte and Tom Watson, my husband, and so many of you readers around here, you liberated gems, you gods, who all knew what was happening in the press and gagged on it with all of us girls, sent emails, and just ranted with the rest of us.
Change has been the buzz word so far. Last night Clinton talked about the power to transform. Yeah, baby.
