The Consequences of New Hampshire

Since 10:00 or so last night, my friends have been blowing up my phone to solicit my reevaluation of the eventual Democratic ticket in November; frankly, their mouth’s were watering over what they were sure would be a crow eating session on my part. Alas, I was compelled to disappoint them. There will be no consumption of crow on my part: there need not be any on the part of the Obama campaign either. Instead, Sen. Obama’s Presidential bid was offered a perfect opportunity to learn a valuable political lesson as a result of last night’s surprising “upset.” My friends are becoming acquainted with my less persistent companion: incredulity.

“How, they demanded to know, were the results in NH not a terrible blow for the Obama organization? What is this vaunted political lesson of which you speak?” To begin with, Sen. Obama placed second in the voting in New Hampshire, having been “defeated” by a scant two percentage points. His position is perfectly in order with historical trends, which show that the most likely eventual nominee leave NH in either first or second place. The gift offered by his placement is that a candidate whose victory is “assured” by the polls should never assume a defensive, let us simply stay in our corner and enjoy the victory, position even if predictive mechanisms indicate that one enjoys a 50% advantage over one’s opponent. In short, the mistake made by Obama’s campaign was to have disengaged from the people so as to prevent a possible damaging move on the candidate’s part. The factor that makes this minor trip-up appear to be so egregious is that Obama’s strength is his incredible connection, akin to a gravitational force, that he seems to make with potential voters with whom he comes in contact.

Sen. Obama is a very smart man; certainly, he now understands that a candidate should never offer his opponent any outlet whatsoever for an alleviation of the pressure that his presence imposes. I would lay odds on the fact that were he to find himself in a similar situation, for example, in SC on January 26 that his activities will become exponentially more frenetic: understanding this last term not in the pejorative sense of panicked commotion, but as signifying a substantial increase in participation with the voters up to the very last second available to him.

Moreover, in his speech congratulating Sen. Clinton, neither his demeanor nor his message bore even a hint of resemblance to a man having just suffered a crushing blow. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to submit that the message he delivered last evening placed him in a position to receive a “bounce” in the upcoming primaries, prior to February 5 (Super Tuesday). Bill Clinton was an exceptionally charismatic man. If one compares the force of Barack Obama’s rhetorical displays with the former President's, however, the latter's magnetism a fraction less compelling than Before Barack (BB). I have been an avid student of American politics for close to three decades now, and I have never heard of any politician’s discursive prowess being compared to that of JFK or Martin Luther King, Jr. so often as has been the case with Obama.

This is not to say that Hillary is not a formidable opponent and a brilliant political tactician, especially given the additional acumen that is contributed by our 42nd President. One of my favorite aphorisms by Nietzsche wisely cautions that “Convictions are greater enemies of truth than are lies.” It is certainly within the realm of possibilities that the conviction with which I desire an Obama Presidency makes me somewhat myopic. Sen. Clinton undoubtedly made a decisive adjustment in the five days between Iowa and New Hampshire. She vigorously pursued the 25-39 year old age group amongst women in NH, which had the result of draining part of one of the constituencies that played such a vital role in Sen. Obama’s Iowa victory. Whereas Obama carried that particular group of voters by a large margin in Iowa, Hillary’s efforts eliminated that margin. They essentially split the votes of women in the age range of 25-39 last night.

Perhaps more significantly, her message last night was clearly not one that she appropriated from some consultant’s play book. While I am not inclined to go so far as some have in declaring Clinton’s emotional display as the prime mover of the momentum that she carried into yesterday’s victory, her overall demeanor displayed an aspect of her personality—I am tempted to say her humanity—that heretofore has not been in evidence. Last night her comportment was diametrically opposed to the shallow characterization of her as an automaton programmed to head unconsciously in the direction of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. On the contrary, she came across as a candidate who truly believes that she is the best person to lead this country forward, to transform the ubiquitous perception of a country bereft of any positive potential for the future. Yesterday we glimpsed candidate Clinton who truly believes that she can forestall even the most egregious of the potential catastrophes, which appear as specters haunting America from coast to coast.

Ultimately, it can only be a good thing for the Democratic candidates to push one another to the very limits of their political and emotional capacities. The outcome of such a contest is bound to prepare the eventual victor for the rigors of both the Primary Election and the eventual role of the leader of the free world. The exhaustive give and take that seems inevitable between Senators Clinton and Obama in the next month, to Super Tuesday, or perhaps even longer, can only serve to endow the winner with the formidable strength that will be required to revive our country—for which we would all like to claim a feeling of inestimable pride—from it’s current decrepit state. Can we regain for America and her citizen’s the pride and prestige for which we cannot help but to be nostalgic? Yes, we can! Yes, we can!