January 10, 2008
The Brothers and Sisters War—Women vs. Blacks In Dem Nomination Fight
By
Patrick J. Buchanan
All politics is local, said the late
House Speaker "Tip" O'Neill.
Tip was wrong. All politics is
tribal—as we just rediscovered in the New Hampshire
primary.
With Obama surging and Hillary reeling
after a third-place finish in Iowa, it seemed all the
dreams of a Clinton restoration would come crashing down
on the eighth of January.
All the pollsters predicted it. All the
pundits agreed. And all the anti-Clintonites, sensing
this was the kill, came streaming out of their closets
to mock Hillary and hail Barack, as they once hailed
Bill.
"The Hun is always at your feet or at
your throat,"
said
Winston Churchill.
Anticipating a blowout, the chattering
class found confirmation Monday morning in an emotional
moment when Hillary choked up and began to tear up. All
day, all night, all the next day, they rebroadcast the
breaking of Hillary. The gloating and glee were
pandemic.
Others, however, saw it, too. Undecided
Democratic voters and independents, especially women,
saw the bullies taunting the girl in the schoolyard,
pulling her pigtails, making her cry. The maternal
instinct kicked in, hard. Women poured out to pick
Hillary up, dust her off, and put her back on her feet,
back into the race and back into the lead.
Hillary's victory became a stunning
upset because no one had predicted it and no one had
expected it after Iowa and all those polls showing Obama
pulling away.
What happened in New Hampshire was a
backlash against press, pollsters, pundits and piling
on. When
Bill Clinton suggested the press was in the tank for
Barack, he understated his case. In the first days
after Iowa, you would have thought Obama had been
born in Bethlehem.
He is the greatest orator since Dr.
King, we were told. He has the passion of
Bobby Kennedy and the cerebral cool of JFK. He will
lead us out of the desert of division into the
sunny uplands of
racial harmony. The caucuses of Iowa were the
Lexington and Concord of a new American Revolution.
Providence has sent us this great gift.
Then New Hampshire rejected him. Worse,
New Hampshire left the pollsters and pundits with egg
all over their faces. Instantly, there arose the need to
explain why everyone had been wrong. And instantly came
the answer: It was racism.
"The Bradley Effect"
defeated Barack, the pundits suggested.
The Bradley Effect is named for
Tom Bradley, the popular black Los Angeles mayor who
was running well ahead of his GOP opponent for governor
in the polls, only to see his lead vanish on Election
Day. The Bradley Effect—voters lying
to pollsters about how they intend to vote for a black
candidate, then going into the booth to pull the
lever for the white opponent—this closet racism defeated
Obama.
Why was there no Bradley Effect in Iowa?
Because in Iowa they have to vote in public, while in
New Hampshire they have the privacy, the secrecy, of the
voting booth.
But this explanation has about it an
aura of spin and sour grapes. How can the Bradley Effect
explain why John Edwards, the hedge fund populist,
collapsed? How does the Bradley Effect explain why women
surged to Hillary, 57 percent of them, while men stayed
with Barack?
The real divide in the Democratic Party
is the clash between the
McGovern wing—the highly educated and the college
young—against the Humphrey-Mondale wing. And while
African-Americans are moving to Obama because he is
one of them, women, a majority in the party, are
moving to Hillary because she is one of them. Blacks and
women are dividing in the Democratic Party over the
issue of: Do we want the first black president or the
first woman president? And in the first major battle of
the Brothers & Sisters War, the sisters won.
This could get ugly. As Hillary's
victory in New Hampshire is being attributed to the
Bradley Effect—i.e., white racism—any Barack victory in
South Carolina will now be attributed to the black vote,
what in the Old South they used to call "the
bloc vote."
Obama could cease to be a crossover
candidate and rapidly be relegated to the Jesse Jackson
role—the African-American
perennial runner-up who is ceded the black and
liberal vote—and bought off with a prime-time speech at
the convention and a campaign plane in the fall.
Racism was not responsible for Obama's
defeat in the Granite State. Indeed, race is the reason
for his rise from nowhere. Race is the reason the
liberals are kneeling in adoration. And gender is not
Hillary's problem. Gender is Hillary's biggest asset in
a party mired since the 1960s in ethnic, gender and race
politics.
In the
last New Hampshire debate, Hillary was asked about
her likability, why so many folks seemed to like Obama
more. She gave the sweet answer of the schoolgirl: "Well,
that hurts my feelings. ... He's very likable. I
agree with that," referring to Obama. "I don't
think I'm that bad."
"You're likable enough, Hillary,"
Obama sneered.
In that moment, the "fairy tale"
may have just gone poof.
Patrick J. Buchanan
needs
no introduction
to VDARE.COM readers; his book
State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and
Conquest of America,
can be ordered from Amazon.com. His new book
is
Day of Reckoning: How
Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart.