Commentators

Partly Sunny with Showers 3° London Hi 5°C / Lo 2°C

Mary Dejevsky: The dilemma for those of us who supported Hillary

Friday, 5 September 2008

As a Hillary voter by proxy ? that is, I would have voted for her, if I had been living in the US and had a vote ? her defeat left me and, more to the point, an unknown number of her 18 million primary voters, with a dilemma.

Getty

As a Hillary voter by proxy ? that is, I would have voted for her, if I had been living in the US and had a vote ? her defeat left me and, more to the point, an unknown number of her 18 million primary voters, with a dilemma.

John McCain's nomination of Sarah Palin as his running mate has re-started the clock on this US election and transformed its dynamic. Everything that has gone before is as though it has never been – except for one thing: the defeat of Hillary Clinton at the hands of a less experienced, more inspirational and eye-catching man. (And what, you might ask, is new there?)

As a Hillary voter by proxy – that is, I would have voted for her, if I had been living in the US and had a vote – her defeat left me and, more to the point, an unknown number of her 18 million primary voters, with a dilemma.

The loyal Democratic choice would be Obama, who had sagely tempered his flashy superficiality with the policy substance of Senator Joe Biden.

But McCain stood seductively in the wings: outspoken; more secular than he could afford to let on to his constituency; a "character" with honorary rebel status, such as we of the Hillary persuasion fancy ourselves to be. A man, moreover, who had been tricked out of the nomination in 2000 by the money and ruthless sense of entitlement of George Bush. What more would it take for McCain to conquer us? His running mate was bound to feature in the equation.

The exhilarating, even reckless, nomination of the first-term Governor of Alaska, only sharpens the dilemma further. For while the choice of a woman was all too clearly calculated to appeal to the Hillary crowd – a generation of working women who pinned their hopes on her as a fellow striver – its primary purpose was designed even more clearly to secure conservative Republicans who might be scared by the apparent non-conformism of McCain. And this is quite a different, almost opposite, group.

Palin's natural constituency, as her rapturous reception at this week's convention showed, consists of grass-roots Republican activists. More broadly, she will draw the god-fearing, patriotic, family-values voters of the small towns, the suburbs and the south. For them, her gender is secondary to her espousal of their priorities.

For the female half of that electorate, she personifies the attractive, efficient, articulate wife and mother they aspire to be. For the men, perhaps McCain included, she is like a successful daughter or sister. As we also know, she opposes abortion, not just in theory, but in practice. What a gift for Republican strategists!

That in so much she represents the very opposite philosophical tendency to the one that drives Hillary Clinton, however, does not mean that her appeal will not cross party lines. What we know about Sarah Palin (after an acquaintance of barely a week) suggests much that Hillary voters can admire.

No Stepford wife, she exhibits willpower, strength of character, and a determination to get things done. In her home state, she took on the very male Republican establishment, and won. As Governor, she has a mandate for the top executive job, which she juggles – it seems, capably – with five children. An Alaskan, she is the ultimate out-of-Washington candidate.

Alright, we might have misgivings: her tolerance of Creationism on the school curriculum, for instance; her opposition to abortion. But is not faith a private matter? So long as she does not try to foist her morality on the rest of us, should the Hillary voters be troubled? At least her piety is not hypocritical: she kept her Downs syndrome baby. And while her daughter's addition to the "teen pregnancy" statistics might suggest blemishes on the family front, her masterly public response – unwelcome news, but we will give the young couple every support – could enhance her appeal to ordinary, imperfect, families.

Depending on what might still be revealed about Mrs Palin, her appeal to the Republican base seems secure. As for the Hillary voters, the rivals for their favours now look remarkably equal, albeit in an unconventional way. A strong-willed woman, whose experience, as she tells it, entailed more "actual responsibilities" than Obama's, could yet win some disappointed women Democrats for McCain.

For me, the touchstone issues are abortion and the real possibility, given McCain's age and health, that someone so untested might suddenly find herself President. Others will argue that a good person, such as they already believe Palin to be, will do the right thing, as a mother or a President of the United States. In the end, how worried voters are about electing a self-styled hockey mom to be "a heartbeat away" from that office could well determine McCain's electability. But they may not be as worried as we in this more timid continent might think.

m.dejevsky@independent.co.uk

For rolling comment on the US election visit: independent.co.uk/campaign08

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Comments

148 Comments

Massachusetts voted 60% for Hillary to 40% for Obama. This was done ignoring our top three politicians, Kennedy, Kerry, and Duval Patrick supporting Obama.

Hillary won most of the big primaries, but proportional representation of delegates and undemocratic public caucuses gave Obama the necessary delegates.

Hillary supporters do not trust Obama. He is a panderer, with an unsavory history as part of the Daly family machine - that has ruled Chicago for generations. Remember how brutally Daly's father attacked the anti-war demonstrators at the 1968 Democratic Convention.

Many Hillary Democrats will vote for a Democratic Congress. But, John McCain has a long history of being a true reformer, unlike Obama. Together with Palin, McCain offers "change" with reform to punish the Washington insiders who have wrecked our nation.

This year, many life-long democrats who voted for Hillary, will vote for McCain-Palin because they have a good record and are trustworthy.

Posted by newenglander | 10.09.08, 05:06 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Ms. Dejevsky said: "But is not faith a private matter? So long as she does not try to foist her morality on the rest of us, should the Hillary voters be troubled?"

That's the point. Palin DOES NOT think faith is a private matter and has said that her god favors, for example, only her specific plan for an Alaskan pipeline. She thinks her god wants her to forbid women and girls who are raped to get abortions. She thinks that what she thinks her god thinks should be what we all think - and she's willing to write that into law and force the rest of us to obey.

She's wildly anti-American in this respect, and we can only hope the U.S. press catches on in time.

Posted by Ankhorite | 10.09.08, 04:01 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Sarah Palin's religion associates her with Biblical "End-Timers"
-- they welcome "the end of the world" as the establishment
of Christ's Kingdom. Palin calls the Iraq war "a task from God,"
& her disbelief in evolution, climate change or anything REAL
pretty much establishes her ability to push the button on the
Final Bang with righteous exhilaration. Mary Dejevsky can muse
upon all this bemusedly from her "timid continent," but if/when
it happens, no cute intellectual bubble will spare anyone anywhere. Supporters of Hillary Clinton who could vote for
McCain/Palin are not "feminists" (making decisions on principle)
but "genitalists" (basing choices on body parts).

Posted by Barbara Mor | 08.09.08, 01:40 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Sarah Palin's religion associates her with Biblical "End-Timers"
-- they welcome "the end of the world" as the establishment
of Christ's Kingdom. Palin calls the Iraq war "a task from God,"
& her disbelief in evolution, climate change or anything REAL
pretty much establishes her ability to push the button on the
Final Bang with righteous exhilaration. Mary Dejevsky can muse
upon all this bemusedly from her "timid continent," but if/when
it happens, no cute intellectual bubble will spare anyone anywhere. Supporters of Hillary Clinton who could vote for
McCain/Palin are not "feminists" (making decisions on principle)
but "genitalists" (basing choices on body parts).

Posted by Barbara Mor | 08.09.08, 01:40 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

@ Rob, Tacoma.


Correction in capitals:

Yes, George W went to Yale - despite having the IQ of a mollusc; it was only through his father's wealth and connections that he was able to get in, so - as I said - he does not qualify as one of the Ivy League intellectual elite.

Re Clinton, yes, he went to Harvard and Oxford, and I believe he was one of the smartest US presidents since Kennedy (although Carter wasn't too dumb, either).

If Clinton had any failings, they were more to do with flaws in his character than in his intellect.

And I think it's interesting than the smartest US presidents since WWII - in my estimation, anyway - were all Democrats. I think that's very telling of the way that the Republicans try to APPEAL TO people'S emotions rather than to their better judgment - precisely as they are doing in this election, of course....

Posted by Steve Denton | 07.09.08, 14:12 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

@ Rob, Tacoma.

Yes, George W went to Yale - despite having the IQ of a mollusc; it was only through his father's wealth and connections that he was able to get in, so - as I said - he does not qualify as one of the Ivy League intellectual elite.

Re Clinton, yes, he went to Harvard and Oxford, and I believe he was one of the smartest US presidents since Kennedy (although Carter wasn't too dumb, either).

If Clinton had any failings, they were more to do with flaws in his character than in his intellect.

And I think it's interesting than the smartest US presidents since WWII - in my estimation, anyway - were all Democrats. I think that's very telling of the way that the Republicans try to people emotions rather than to their better judgment - precisely as they are doing in this election, of course....

Posted by Steve Denton | 07.09.08, 14:10 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Spot on as far as Palin's appeal to the Republican base-- clearly the reason for the nomination, rather than to appeal to disaffected Hilary supporters. The latter seems extremely unlikely-- hard to see a dilemma for those who care about the issues she advocated. In that sense the rivals for their favors hardly seem equal. Key test will be how the split message the convention showcased-- harsh partisan rhetoric from Palin and the base, coupled with McCain's appeal to transcend partisanship-- can possibly succeed.

Posted by Stuart | 07.09.08, 08:54 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Steve,
Yes the Robespierre compairison was a rather narrow aspect of his whole story.
I have to disagree with your annalogy of the brain surgeon. A brain surgeon has a specific job and his background should be focused on just that. A polititian is a servant of the people and should have an understanding of the people. Of course we have been tricked in the past with the likes of good actors such as George w. Bush and Bill Clinton. But on further review we can see that they are Yale and Harvard/Oxford graduates respectively. The next President should have authentic "street cred" not just a common accent or empty words about "caring for the common folk". I want a leader who understands that the people are capable of caring for themselves and that all that is needed is for the government to get out of the way. The curriculum at the Ivy league schools does not support this approach.

Posted by Rob, Tacoma | 06.09.08, 20:36 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

McSame versus Change...
unity through continuing to appeal to those who want a strict dad who will beat up our playground enemies, versus the slower struggle to try and talk with bullies so we can all get along without bombing the crap out of each other...

the gender debate is a red herring, Clinton was a poor liar, and achieved little but a major failure in healthcare reform during her "experience years" - as an apologist for Bill, (who incidentally attacked more foreign targets than Reagan), she represents the tired old establishment, like Bush, more than the, admittedly faint, hope of a change promised by Obama.

OK Its possible that Obama will be shot and we will get Joe Biden, or that McSame will croak and we would get Palin,

the first option is clearly better since Biden could handle international relations in the wake of a presidential death, Palin champions shooting wolves from a helicopter.

voting for a dumb woman, because she's a woman is dumb.

Posted by patrick graham | 06.09.08, 14:11 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

@ Rob, Tacoma

(cont)

And is it any wonder that people repeatedly elect leaders who are so manifestly - and dangerously - incapable of doing the job? Who was it who said that people generally get the governments they deserve? When your leaders screw up, don't blame them, blame yourself for electing the clueless, unqualified idiots in the first place!

Oh, and by the way, was your likening of Palin to Robespiere intentionally ironic? You do remember what Robespierre's fate was, don't you? :o)

Posted by Steve Denton | 06.09.08, 14:08 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

148 Comments

Columnist Comments

terence_blacker

Terence Blacker: The greasy gravy train of lobbyism

The idiocy and graft at work in the system barely merits a second glance.

dominic_lawson

Dominic Lawson: When 'life' should mean life.

Sometimes the public feel the perpetrator should not be released.

steve_richards

Steve Richards: Who is accountable for the police?

Why was Damian Green arrested with such spectacular insensitivity?