Since Super Tuesday earlier this month, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has been slipping. Since Super Tuesday, Barack Obama has won 11 straight Democratic contests and has overtaken her in national polls.
This campaign, which remains ongoing, will be studied for decades. Much of the study will focus on the difficulties that Hillary Clinton has faced in the campaign after being the presumed Democratic nominee until the first contest in Iowa. (In the sprit of fairness, I am a Barack Obama supporter and have been throughout his campaign, though I do not feel that my personal preferences cloud my ability to view the campaign process objectively). With that said, I believe there are several important factors that have contributed to Hillary Clinton’s recent losing streak.
As overused of a claim it has become, Democratic voters’ desire for change has been a primary factor in Clinton’s losses. When I speak of “change” I do not mean the optimistic, lofty and often unspecified change that Obama’s campaign promises; I am simply referring to different leadership in Washington. At the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, it will be a full 20 years of Bush and Clinton in the White House-and 28 if George H. W. Bush’s time as Vice President under Ronald Reagan is counted. This year, voters are weary of extending that streak to 32 or possibly 36 years.
Former President Clinton’s actions on the campaign trail on behalf of his wife-mocking Barack Obama, admonishing the media, making comments with racial undertones and yelling at members of the crowds at rallies-have only served to help solidify voters’ skepticism. Furthermore, the relentless and bitter attacks on Hillary Clinton made during the numerous Republican debates only helped remind voters of the extreme partisanship that ruled politics during her husband’s administration and has remained through George W. Bush’s. Though Democratic voters see the 1990s as favorable and prosperous for the country, in 2008 they are looking to escape that bitter partisanship of the past and present. A major factor in Hillary’s loss in support has simply been frustration amongst voters. As time as gone on, more and more voters are expressing their desire for new leaders in the White House.
Another (perhaps equally) important factor in Hillary’s losses has been reluctance among Democratic male voters to vote for a female candidate. While the gender gap in her support has been widely reported on, the reasons behind it have not been properly explored. That many men either outright refuse or feel discomfort in voting for a woman for president at this point in our history is a shame, but it is a fact. Some of this is a conscious refusal that can only be explained by pure sexism.
However, much, if not most, of this reluctance is subconscious. This is the factor that is often overlooked in the analysis of this race. Many men feel an immediate dislike for a powerful and strong woman like Hillary Clinton who is not satisfied with the gender roles of the past. They view her ability to put up a tough fight as either intimidating or simply unlikable. They perceive her strong self-defense (e.g. responding to the Obama campaign mailers in Ohio) as whining and complaining and her attacks on her opponents as pettiness. Should a male candidate make these same attacks and remarks, they would most certainly be viewed differently. This is unfortunate but true. It is a real explanation of her lack of support among men in the United States and has been a hurdle which she has had much trouble overcoming.
Finally and pretty obviously, Barack Obama himself has been a major factor in her loss of support among voters and superdelegates. The simple fact that Barack Obama is her opponent in this race has made her campaign much more challenging. Despite their near congruence on the issues, many voters see Obama as the answer to their problem with the continued leadership in Washington. Obama, in many ways, is the antithesis of Hillary Clinton in that he is a brand new face in Washington, without a long history of controversies and partisanship. He is also exciting voters; for the first time in awhile, American voters are becoming optimistic and enthused about politics. In recent weeks, Hillary Clinton has attempted to win votes by criticizing and even mocking that optimism-a tough task that is only one of a series of poor political choices during her campaign.
Perhaps she missed her best chance to serve as president in 2004. Four years ago, many voters were wishing that they could have their vote in the 2000 election back and were looking for a third Clinton term. They couldn’t find satisfaction in the completely unspectacular John Kerry. The country was extraordinarily partisan with no desire to bridge any divides and George W. Bush won reelection. Hillary Clinton may have had a much better shot in 2004; there was no Barack Obama in the race and voters were looking for a redo election. This year, though, voters are not looking for a redo; they are looking for something brand new. Hillary Clinton may be four years too late.
However, I am a firm believer in Yogi Berra’s classic statement that, “It ain’t over ’till it’s over.” This campaign is not over, despite the media’s premature coronation of Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for the general election in November. The factors for her losses of late are not overwhelming and can easily be overcome. With a win in Texas, Ohio, or both next week, she can again become the frontrunner in the race. Obama has been facing a recent backlash to his support, with many criticizing his campaign and his supporters. He may have peaked too early in the race, and it support could lessen.
This contest is a lot closer than many would like to believe, but either way it goes, its study should keep us all busy for a long time.
Altin is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum editor. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].