Washington File

Apparently, up there in Canadaland, you really have no idea how the politics have played out here as of late.

Obama and Clinton are everywhere. They're not just the Democratic front-runners, they're the Presidential front-runners. The race/gender cards come into play because, whether we like it or not, they're going to play a large role. I've already heard women say "I'm voting for Hillary because we need a female President!".

Maybe it's just me, but perhaps race or gender shouldn't be the SOLE reason you vote for someone. Nor should a little tear-jerk fest.

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans look for little reasons like that. I usually lean Republican, however will vote for the best candidate, and in the past 16 years we've had nothing but horrid candidates. It's been nothing but "Who's the lesser evil?".

But, speaking as an educated, politically minded individual, the majority of you are wrong. No, "a white Republican" will not win the election in the U.S. this year. Perhaps your perception of the U.S. is stuck in the 1950s, but we're not that insanely racist. Bigots here and there don't ruin the whole lot of us. Quite frankly, we're almost TOO PC now.

So, you can expect, most likely, President Obama in 2009.

...and if the country is lucky, perhaps a Vice President Edwards.

Isn't Hillary doing what most and if not all women do..which is, if they dont get their way and/or feel a little pressure or stress, they will sit there and cry and pretend that their lives are not fair (mostly due to evil men who run their lives and the world)..just find it hard to believe a person who gains 15 pounds after make up can be the leader of the free world...

Call me hopeful but I do believe that Henry was right when he compared Iraq to Vietnam.

If you don't believe that the war is right for whatever reason,then the people will turn on all who do participate in it and endorse it.

I believe that is what is being seen in the U.S. right now by the people.

They want to be proud of their country but right now it is being scorned by the world particularly because of Iraq.

Call me cynical. Call me wrong. I believe that nothing either the redoubtable Mr. Obama nor the admirable Ms. Clinton will do over the next several days will make any difference in the final outcome.

America is at war. It is involved in one of the worst wars it has ever engaged in. America will not elect either a black person nor a woman to the presidency in this time, nor even a Democrat. Americans at heart need the most basic, most brutal candidate possible, and that means a Republican. Doesn't matter much who they are, nor even if they make sense in public, so long as they convey that endearing sense of homely, righteous, self-satisfaction that all successful Republicans have exuded since Nixon.

I applaud both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama. Neither of them are the right colour or gender for America, however. Some old white guy with billions of dollars behind him will win eventually. That's what the world's multi-billionaires want, and that's what they will get. That's the way the world works.

I fervently wish something new would happen in the American front. Hey, maybe they'll elect the first ever (black man / independent woman) in American history. I don't believe that will happen. Americans won't let it happen.

it would seem that Hillary's "moment of authenticity" (to quote Gloria Steinman) salvaged her New Hampshire campaign but I would not expect it to last. Future voters, in future primaries, will not have the benefit of "the moment" and she will dare not repeat it. I expect New Hampshire will become a high point in her campaign, although I exoect it to be a close and spirited race to the end. The Democrats really have the rare luxury of hosting the two stongest candidates, regardless of party!

I don't 'get it'! What is all this media noise about the Democratic Senators B.Obama & H. Clinton? Does the media REALLY expect the USA to elect a black man or a woman as president???
The USA is at WAR! The next president of the USA will be A Republican ..... and will most likely be Senator McCain. He is an old-white-boy with a distinguished military history. He has the $$$ support of the military/industrial/complex behind him.
End of story...smell the coffee...wake up!

The gender stereotyping and sensationalism is not the issue. They are symptoms of a basic failure of modern journalism illustrated, in this case, by the overdependance on poll numbers, as Henry seems to allude. A reporters job is to report what happened, not tell us what will happen. Opinion is the providence of pundits and prognostication that of fortune tellers. Reporting on polls is the tricky bit, as it is akin to telling a constituency's hopes and dreams wrapped up in the reassuring language of numbers. There's another word for that ... fiction. These days , it seems that "reporters" seem to be more focused on winning the Booker prize rather than exercising objectivity. Perhaps that's why we see the increased use of the title "correspondant" - perhaps the professional responsibility is less weighty if all you are doing is writing letters or blogging.

Now that we have all got over the "Hilary moment", will the CBC be reporting anything about Cinton's and Obama"s policy platforms perhaps?

HC on Jan 7th:
"Enough of my caution. At this point, it feels safe to say that, short of some self-inflicted wound between now and the Super Tuesday primaries on February 5, Obama will be the Democratic party nominee come the convention at the end of August."

HC on Jan 9th:
"Both campaigns, Democratic and Republican, have become very competitive, which means that, as we head to Super Tuesday on February 5th, the race for the White House will dominate the headlines and the newscasts for the next several weeks at least."

Mr. Champ was no champ on Jan 7th; goodness knows what his Jan 9th writing means.

Why is this CBC journalist trying to be a "pundit"?

How about just reporting the news, rather than trying to make it?

I'm sure this is not the first time we have seen this... Likely won't be the last!

Mr. Champs CV - in About , in upper right - states: "... delivering Canadian viewers the latest developments in the U.S. political arena. "
Let's see that made true!
Who gives a darn about his "cloudy crystal ball"?

While not a fan of Hillary, I was glad to see her win and the Democrat race kept interesting. Don't rule out the possibility that Edwards could win a couple of major primaries and create some momentum to his side. As the campaign rolls on I can expect to see an ABC (anyone but Clinton) movement begin to sweep the party. The key is electibility. Too many independent voters can't stand Hillary. She has been denounced for more than a decade by Rush Limbaugh and other right wing blow-hards that she just won't sell in the mid-west and south. Obama and Edwards, on the other hand, have much broader appeal in every corner of the country. They are both well-liked and carry very little baggage.

The only truly 'logical' conclusion is that the polls were WRONG. The extent to which predictions swung by some 20 points within only a few hours on voting day (when was the last time in modern Western political history that that happened?!?) reveals how inaccurate the numbers were last night and how uncritical members of the media had been in the lead-up to voting in NH. The media, especially the professional members, really should have done a much better job of reporting.

I too would like to see President Hillary and Vice Obama! I think that would be an unbeatable ticket down there in the good ol usa although I must admit that as far as I can see anyone could run against the Republicans and win by a landslide I have a feeling the pendulum is going to swing way back and there will be a huge Democrat majority irresoective of who the candidate is.

I am less interested in the welfare of the individual candidates than I am in the overall political landscape. Are the Americans likely to elect a Republican or a Democrat? Did Clinton get better numbers in New Hampshire and Obama in Iowa than the Republicans? That's the question no one seems to be addressing yet.

"Crying like an emotional basketcase"
That is the real stereotype. She didn't even shed an actual tear, her voice merely cracked to show a little emotion (something Al Gore could have used 8 years ago). Women, there they go, off bawling again. But when Dubya listens to his gut, and emotionally (and irrationally) invades countries to sate his thirst for revenge, he is a real man? Silly drivel. Still, this race on both sides of the spectrum will make for fantastic entertainment. Just when you want to write the USA off, there they go showing the world how amazing and powerful their democracy can be.

Ok, I am not exactly sure why a woman voting for a woman is seen as voting for "one of their own" and that the "only logical conclusion" could be sympathy.

Could it not be that some women (or any voter for that matter) in New Hampshire thought Ms. Clinton was simply the better candidate? She would get my vote because she is the most experienced to deal with the monumental problems of the US economy and the war in Iraq.

Correspondingly, why is a male vote for John McCain never depicted as a sympathy vote or as a vote for "one of their own", when in fact it just might be. Perhaps some men in their 70s feel sorry for Mr. McCain? I don't know but I've never heard a CBC reporter speculate about this possibility.

C'mon. I expect this kind of 1950s stereotyping on Fox News but I had come to expect better from CBC. New Hampshire is a different demographic than Iowa. That's the big difference, whether anyone cried or not.

There has been much media play on the 'near to tears' incident with Hillary Clinton but little mention of the fact that hard on the heels of her 'showing' this purported softer side, her claws were fully drawn and aimed at Obama. Nor the fact that as she was having her 'near to tears' drama, hubby Bill was trashing Obama elsewhere.
Anyone who has ever watched the Bill & Hillary show has seen their mastery of 'emotion on demand' when needed, even in support of bald faced lies.
For a man being trashed daily by a former President and his political cronies facing a high powered money machine the real winner in my book was Obama.
Although I would prefer Edwards, Obama came out the ever gracious winner.

The media always loves to endorse the underdogs and bash the front-runners. It's way more interesting to cover a race than a coronation. After a while, the media starts to believe it's own stories, and those that read or listen only to the headlines may do the same. However, anyone who has witnessed a tight campaign team knows that it is a simple formula to win. First, identify your support, and second, get it out to vote. Each step requires volunteers and paid staff. The more money you have to spend, the more staff you can employ. Emotions rally volunteers, but cash employs workers. Clinton has been raising cash, and hiring workers for a long time which puts her organization well in the lead. Barring any public catastrophies, I expect that the Clinton organization should prevail over a surging, but less organized Obama team. I also expect that next time around, Obama will have everything he needs in place a lot earlier which will make the difference next time when he models his next campaign team after Clinton's.

I think it should be remembered that Mrs. Clinton's victory was a slim one indeed - a mere couple of percentage points, a couple thousand votes. In the big picture, yes it is a victory, but only just so. I think just as the media over-hyped Mr. Obama's win in Iowa, so too now they will over-hype this one. To me, this win indicates only that Mrs. Clinton still has a strong base of support, but it is (or has been) eroding significantly; a win, but hardly a comfortable or comforting one. I just hope US voters will see past the hype and make sound decisions, not just (as other commenters have noted) emotional ones.

Thanks for being honest and open about your miscalculation Henry. I have quoted you and forwarded the link to your blog all week.

A secondary story, almost entirely lost, is that in mid-October Clinton was polling at 40% in that state, and finished within one or two percent off that marker. Sure she dipped to the mid 20s, and then came back, but the support was always there. Obama began at the mid-20s, which seemed to most to be firmly stuck in that range both nationally and in New Hampshire. In the end, it grew and grew and grew. His message clearly resonates with voters. Obama is still the story despite the loss but Hillary is today's headline, and rightfully so.

As for what is to come, who knows. Nevertheless, it is fun to watch.

Just a little side note...a lot is being said in the media about how Hilary is being singled out for special critcism because she is a woman and that women candidates are stereotyped unfairly.
Crying like an emotional basketcase might have swung a few votes in NH, but it didn't do much to quash the "women can't be leaders because they are too emotional" stereotype.
I think that will hurt her in the long run if she wins the candidancy for the Democrats. I know if I was a Republican strategist I'd be playing up and reinforcing that stereotype over and over again.

Henry Champ's comment that he talked to voters who, although sympathetic to Hilary Clinton, had voted for Barack Obama indicates that emotions were not the sole or necessarily the major factor influencing voter decisions in NH.

Emotions could have lead to an even greater consideration of questions such as these: Do I want Obama as President and Clinton as VP, or Clinton as President and Obama as VP? Or: Do I really want Clinton out of the race so early, before Obama has proven himself over a longer period?

Either way, it seems like the Democrats, if they can avoid destroying each other's candidacies in the primaries, are riding a very good wave to...

Although I feel Obama is the more compelling candidate, I was hoping that Hillary would not go out in a blowout and was glad to see that she survived. These first two primaries gave the nation a good first look at the candidates in a number of venues and I think these will be lasting impressions. I don’t think Obama has all of a sudden lost his lustre and I don’t think Hilary has had a near death experience that will change the way she campaigns. This campaign will be exciting indeed.

The media are obsessed by polls, whether they are right or wrong. They are not truly scientifically random because people do not often answer phones and many people will not answer polling or survey questions. Therefore you end up with a specific group of people that are not representative of the mass being surveyed. The media spend an in inordinate amount of time forecasting and usually getting it wrong.

Clinton and Obama have two "horse team" approach one of which will pull harder - the Republicans are a single horse team which if falters all is lost but Obama being a young horse may lose spirit if too much weight is loaded and he loses - Clinton Pres - Obama Vice Pres - next go around Clinton retires Obama with the experience gained becomes Pres

It seems to support my theory on decision making. It's largely based on emotions not logic. If in fact many women made a change based on how they felt then indeed it was an emotional based change.
At the same time, candidates tend to elaborate their vision and their leadership capabilities....leaving little in the way of policies upon which to logically decide. Most leaders, in my view, are elected based on how we "feel" they will lead and/or how worried we are about our fears. An emotional decision. Fear is how Bush won a second term, charisma is how Trudeau won and and whipping up hopeful feelings about Germany is how Hitler gained power. Emotional decisions can be dangerous.

I think the "Hillary Moment" is being overplayed as the reason voters moved her way . In fact, the Obama surge in Iowa may have set off an alarm for the apathetic Clinton supporters who thought their candidate had the nomination tied up tightly. His growing support and coronation by the press did two things: made people (espically Democrates) contimplate the outcome of an election with Obama as thier candidate; and made voters examine him a little more critically. Unsure they moved back to Clinton, not in droves but enought to give her victory.
The real winner is democracy. Obama will have to do more than give inspiring speeches about change and hope (and perhaps set out a map with a few specifics) and Clinton will have to reassess her own campaign and listen to the message from the Obama camp that things do in fact have to change. All in all it makes for a great showdown in the next few months.