Hillary Clinton Hoodwinks New Hampshire
By Peter Lemiska
Jan 12, 2008
nationalledger.com
On the day prior to the New Hampshire primaries, virtually every poll predicted a decisive victory for Barack Obama. Pundits were predicting that Hillary Clinton would likely suffer a significant loss, possibly even jeopardizing her campaign. Polls and pundits are not always right, but Hillary’s win was almost breathtaking. After all, some of the pollsters had predicted a loss by more than 10 points.
So how could everyone have been so wrong? While analysts point to flaws in opinion polls, and theorize about Obama’s failure to mobilize enough young voters, the one thing everyone seems to agree on is that Clinton received more than expected support from women voters.
Perhaps there is a much simpler explanation for Hillary’s victory in New Hampshire. It’s just possible those opinion polls were right all along, and she was indeed destined to lose to Obama. But something happened between the last opinion poll and the opening of the voting booths, something that changed the dynamics of the race.
Actually, there were two events in the final hours before the vote that may very well have swayed women voters.
The first was Clinton’s well-publicized tearful response to a question from an admirer. Some believe this seemingly tender moment was nothing more than theatrics. After all, during her more than 16 years of public life, we had never seen her shed a tear. And she had plenty of opportunity to show compassion and sensitivity, for example at Vince Foster’s funeral, or during her tour of ground zero following the 9/11 attacks. Also, it was no secret that her handlers saw a problem and were desperately trying to portray a more sensitive side of Hillary. So is it any wonder those teardrops have come under such scrutiny?
Most, however, are not quite that cynical, believing that her emotional display was truly heartfelt.
But what stirred these newfound emotions?
When her eyes first welled, it was easy to feel empathy, even sympathy for Hillary, who it seemed was finally expressing real passion about our country’s future. But in an instant, the old Hillary resurfaced, as she seized the opportunity to attack her opponents. And we, most of us, understood that those tears were not for the country’s, but for her own political future.
Nonetheless, for the first time, everyone saw a vulnerable side of Hillary, and based on the primary results, those precious tears certainly didn’t hurt her.
Then there was another, less talked about incident that can only be described as bizarre. On election eve, during a rally in Salem, New Hampshire, Senator Clinton’s speech was disrupted by a couple of hecklers yelling "iron my shirt," while waving a sign displaying the same words. It was an apparent attack on Hillary, the feminists and the feminist movement. But while officials were already in the process of removing the two, Clinton did a curious thing. Rather than ignoring the commotion, as most speakers would do, and as she has done in the past, instead she went out of her way to draw attention to the hecklers. She even ordered the lights to be turned up, announcing that that it was a little too dark in the room.
Of course, she followed up with some references to sexism and the glass ceiling, and received wild applause. But was the whole thing faked just to rally the female vote?
Anyone watching the video might easily conclude that everything looked a bit too pat, too contrived. And when you consider Clinton’s propensity for salting her audiences, her willingness to do anything to win, and the fact that, according to the New York Daily News, one of the hecklers had a "Hillary Clinton" bumper sticker on his car, it’s hard to conclude otherwise.
So maybe those polls were right all along, right up until the 11th hour, when Hillary pulled out the gender card and worked her magic.
Who can say?
There is still a long way to go in this campaign, and Senator Clinton is shrewd. Even if these two events were merely fortuitous for Clinton, she is clearly willing to exploit the gender issue, as she did during the Las Vegas debates, talking about that 93 year-old lady who only wants to live long enough to see a woman in the White House.
Many women today want the same thing, but only the most radical feminists want it at any cost.
If, however, the vast majority of objective and rational women voters fail to recognize Clinton’s exploitation of her gender, they will allow bias to affect their vote. And they will fail to fulfill the most solemn obligation of any voter: to choose the best candidate, the one who can unite the country.
Hillary Clinton has proven time and again that she has more determination than character. She managed to hoodwink New Hampshire, and she will hoodwink as many voters as necessary to win the nomination.
Peter Lemiska is an Air Force veteran and former Senior Special Agent of the U.S. Secret Service. He holds a BA in psychology. |
