This time around, the Democrats are playing for the presidency.
National Post... Canada, 01-12-2008
Hillary Clinton may win the presidency of the United States this year for the same reason Edmund Muskie lost it in 1972: Moist eyes. Both the senator for New York and the late senator for Maine had an emotional moment in response to a question in front of the cameras. The near-tears reinvigorated Senator Clinton's campaign as surely as they had hosed down the presidential hopes of senator Muskie.
Muskie's drive to the White House was mired in a cubic millimetre of moisture after his eyes became watery while defending his wife's character at an open-air press conference. Whether it was tears or (as he later claimed) melting snowflakes, Muskie's moist eyes made him appear weak. In contrast, Hillary's moist eyes in 2008 made her appear human. They propelled her, in less than two days, from trailing her Iowa nemesis, Barack Obama, to passing him in New Hampshire.
Why, you ask? Well, a man crying isn't the same as a woman crying. What's sauce for the goose is definitely not sauce for the gander. Vive la difference? Be that as it may, there's little doubt about the double standard.
True, the 36 years that passed since 1972 may have feminized the United States enough to make it permissible for even a male presidential candidate to choke up on being asked a highly emotional question, such as "How do you do it?"
Let's see: Rudy -- my question is very personal -- how do you do it? Getting up day after day, staying so upbeat, so? "Boo-hoo-hoo? "
Hmm. Yes, Rudy, I know it worked for Hillary, but play it safe. Don't do it.
Talking of Senator Clinton's rivals, if Barack Obama were to get the ultimate nod, it would result in the best-looking First Lady in the While House since Jackie O. Still, sinuous Michelle may not be a sufficient reason to elect Obama, who in other respects is a rather iffy proposition for leading what used to be called the Free World.
Apart from thinking that Canada suffers from a presidential rather than a parliamentary form of government -- an oversight Obama
We might be getting the best-looking First Lady in the White House since Jackie O. shares with many of his geographically challenged countrymen -- he appears to genuinely hold the lefty views his lagging competitor, Senator John Edwards, embraces for reasons of expediency. (Sample Obama: "You wanna fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil.") O sancta simplicitas! While sincerity is a virtue, I'm not so sure that true believers of simplicities are to be preferred to pretend-believers. Someone has persuaded the former litigator with the boyish smile, Senator "I'm Working Class" Edwards, that the vacancy left by Howard "My Yell Is More Bizarre Than Yours" Dean on the far-left of the Democratic Party is the best spot from which to outflank Obama. Edwards has initiated a pincer movement designed to squeeze the Kenyan-American-Catholic-Muslim between Hillary's rock and a hard place. So far, it isn't working.
I think Americans have already made up their minds that the charismatic Obama does in fact represent change, while his Democratic opponents are essentially business as usual. To secure Obama's nomination, though, Americans would have to additionally believe that electing Obama means change for the better. I don't think many have made up their minds about that yet.
C'est tout for the viable Democratic lineup, which really means the lineup for the White House. The Republican candidates don't much matter, because whoever the nominee is going to be, he won't get the top job this time around. It's simply not in the cards, unless (a) the Democratic nominee gets arrested for domestic violence before November (unlikely, unless, wait ? Hillary?) or (b) al-Qaeda pulls another 9/11 (not quite as unlikely, but still improbable.)
All the same, let's take a quick look. Forget Mike Huckabee, despite Iowa. Even Americans won't send someone to the White House who says "irregardless" without blinking. (Yes, I know they put up with George W. talking about North Korea's nukular ambitions, but it's not the same thing.) Rudy Giuliani would need Osama bin Laden to campaign for him, and the last I heard he wasn't on the payroll. Americans have amply indicated that they won't do Mitt Romney, so they will have to do mittout him.
This leaves New Hampshire winner John McCain. He may be no scholar either, but he's a gentleman. He has character to spare, and would probably stick to his guns whether they were loaded or not. In Canadian terms, he would be a Red Tory, but it's misleading to talk about American politics in Canadian terms.
The candidate most Canadians would like to see win is Ron Paul. The retired obstetrician's heart is in the right place, wherever the rest of his anatomy may be, but it's not his infatuation with liberty that makes us prefer him. Libertarian, whatever, we say: He's a doctor. So, let him into the White House. Given the vagaries of our health care system, it's good to have a specialist living next door.
nationalpost.com |
