Matthew Norman: American democracy in all its filthy glory
Friday, 9 May 2008
A myriad of analogies have been lavished on Hillary Clinton as she has waged her desperate, demented, putrid and strangely magnificent rearguard over recent months. She's been the Duracell Bunny, the Terminator, Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, the schlock horror creature that cannot be killed, and too many other paradigms of relentlessness to mention here.
A special favourite came this week from an American pundit, Seth Greenland, who concluded that she is John Cleese's Black Knight – the one who has his arms and then a leg sliced off by King Arthur, and cheerily declares: "All right, we'll call it a draw".
This is Hillary after Tuesday's double disaster. Had she lost North Carolina by a whisker and won Indiana by a mile, as anticipated, she would still be the underdog today, but an underdog with money, momentum and the waggiest of tails scampering after the Holy Grail that is the White House. She did the precise reverse, losing North Carolina by a landslide, and clinging on in her demographic dreamland of white, working-class Indiana by the skin of her exquisitely sculpted teeth. And while the watching millions recoiled at the lifeblood of financial and political support visibly oozing from her stumps, she stood on an Indiana stage and called it a draw.
A double plus for chutzpah, yet again, but as every sentient commentator now agrees: It. Is. Over. Some of the thicker smart arses jumped the gun, admittedly, in awarding the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama. One particular imbecile (I think he appears on this page each Friday) assured readers that Hill-ary's gracious concession speech would swiftly follow the Texas primary in early March. But against the odds she won there (in votes if not delegates), as she had done in New Hampshire before, and so the myth of Unkillable Hill grew until one came to believe that, however compelling the electoral mathematics, only a silver bullet could stop her.
Today only a bullet, silver or otherwise, can save her. That or video footage, from the director of Max Mosley: The Movie, of Obama being led around a Chicago dungeon on a dog collar by a PVC catsuit-clad Abu Hamza while being fed the entrails of white babies by the Rev Jeremiah Wright and shrilly insisting that 9/11 was the work of Mossad.
Assassination or epochal scandal apart, she has lost and even Bill knows it. Standing behind her on the dais, his face a shade of crimson to make Alex Ferguson on Claret Night look like Lilith Crane after a talc factory explosion, he could barely dredge up the wounded boxer's defiant grin when she lurched briefly into valedictory mode, and pledged to support the Democratic candidate to the full.
She might even have meant it. Her friends think she'd take the vice-presidential slot, and given the pressure on Obama to close the schism she opened with all the nuanced race-baiting and attack ads, he may have to hold his nose and make the offer. More likely, perhaps, she will look to him to settle her campaign debts and dangle such inducements to good behaviour in front of the HillBillies as the Senate majority leader's job for her and a Supreme Court berth for him.
All that is a sideshow now, though, as the eyes of the world begin to settle on America's first global candidate since JFK, and his chances in the general election. For what it's worth (considerably less than zero, you'd have to say, on the soothsaying form), I think he'll beat John McCain with surprising ease, and if so he will have one person to thank above all others in his victory address early on November 3. That person isn't his enchanting wife Michelle, the mother who guided him, or the casually racist Kansan grandmother who raised him.
That person is Hillary Clinton, whose remorseless assaults eventually coalesced into the final piece in the jigsaw of his electability. The only grave doubt there ever was about a man of luminescent rhetorical flair and rich intellectual gifts was his mettle. Could he come through the inevitable ordeal by fire, or would the nickname Obambi stick?
For two months, whenever his reverence fell quiet, she threw the drains beneath the kitchen sink, enriched with finest polonium-210, at his skinny frame. With very few forays into reciprocal squalor, he withstood it all and emerged scathed but strengthened on "that which doesn't kill you" lines.
And once he's thanked her, he should thank the nomination process itself for enabling such an electrifying scrap. Observing it closely from this side of the Atlantic has been both an education in the splendour of flawed but full-blooded democracy in action and a poignant holiday from the dank, drizzly torpor of our own anaemic version.
From 3 January, when the caucus-goers of Iowa packed into each other's houses to argue the toss with courteous fervour, all the way to Tuesday when the good people of Indiana glanced contemptuously at her "gas tax holiday" bribe and told her where to stick the nozzle, it's been a continual source of both wonderment and gloom.
What wouldn't you give for a tenth of that passion here in Britain, where we shuffle to the polls every four or five years with the relish of a New England turkey facing a ballot paper featuring only Christmas and Thanksgiving. There, they will choose between a bellicose, maverick Republican torture victim with a filthy temper and an insatiable appetite for arguing politics with those who disagree with him, and an elegiac black man of mixed race, brought up on food stamps and far-fetched ambition, who knows the bad streets of Chicago as intimately as the quads of Harvard.
Here, we look forward with glee to picking between a punch drunk, semi-comatose, puritan nebbish shaping nicely into Labour's Jimmy Jones, and a chameleon from the neo-Jim Bowen wing of the modern Tory Party (You Can't Beat A Bit of Bullingdon!) who embraced compassionate conservatism within months of authoring that dog-whistling, retrograde manifesto for Michael Howard.
I don't want to labour the comparison, because the last time I checked the medicine cabinet we were flat out of strychnine, so suffice it to wonder just this: for all America's colossal flaws, domestically and as an imperial power, can you begin to imagine either of our beamish boys surviving the searingly intrusive electoral system that has decided on Barack Hussein Obama? And if somehow they did come through it, wouldn't they be immeasurable improved as politicians?
The nomination race which effectively ended on Tuesday has been as ugly and brutal as anything you're ever likely to witness in democratic politics, and it showcased democracy in all its filthy glory. How wondrous it has looked to those lumbered with an untried, untested, unseasoned third-rate PM through a silent coronation. And how grievously we'll miss it once Hillary officially recognises that fighting without limbs is a step beyond even her legendary resilience.
For rolling comment on the US election visit: independent.co.uk/campaign08




Comments
77 Comments
Some nice drama for the masses to watch the worst of the worst. Niether will have a chance against Mccain.
A Biotch married to a Lawyer, and a Lawyer married to a Biotch.
Or
A War Hero married to a Good looking woman who owns a Beer distribution business.
Posted by P | 11.05.08, 22:09 GMT
Hey, texastwin! I'm a Texas boy myself, born and raised. They're hammering out deals right now to get Fla. and Mich. delegates seated, but I'm afraid you're wrong about the numbers. Even if they counted all 188 delegates from Fla. it's only a net gain of 38 delegates for Clinton. And they're actually proposing 1/2 votes (94) like the Republicans did. And in Michigan they're proposing 69 delegates for Clinton and 59 delegates for Obama. It would be extremely unfair to give Clinton all the delegates when Obama wasn't on the ballot and "Uncommitted" received a whopping 40% of the vote (237,762 to be exact). That comes out to a net 48 more delegates in the best-case scenario for Clinton. I think that they should have just followed the rules in the first place and we wouldn't have had this problem.
Posted by Jeff | 11.05.08, 13:09 GMT
Congratulations, you just destroyed all the goodwill that Sarah Churchwell gained for Mother England. I hope your proud of yourself!
Posted by Jim K
LOL Jim K....surely you're not serious! Most Americans have always viewed the British and Americans somewhat like two siblings....while they might pick on each other, they would never allow others to do so, without coming to the defense of each other! Given that a great number of us are of British ancestry, obviously, we have a bond that's been dented a little, at times, but has never been broken
I will admit, that when I first started reading this story, I was offended at both the title and his early comments about Hillary Clinton. However, as I read the article, Mr Norman redeemed himself, quite nicely. Of the 3 running for this office, NONE would be really my choice. That said, I will say that I did switch from Obama to Clinton, in this process. McCain was never in the consideration....to much of "more Bush polictics" (who I didn't even vote for as my govenor, let alone as my President)
Unfortunately, both the Democratic & Republican Parties have done much to prevent any candidate, other than the ones they have "hand picked", in becoming the nominees.
The Dems have, so far, disallowed, Michigan & Florida's primaries which Clinton won...because the states broke a rule and held their primaries too early. Because they did, the Natl Party stripped them of having their delegates seated at the convention...how convenient. Ignore over 2 million voters, but most of all deny Hillary Clinton a large number of delegates, even though she won both primaries (Obama chose to not be placed on the ballot in Michigan). The 2 states have a total of 342 delegates, excluding the superdelegates. Clinton is entitled to a minimum of 73 in Michigan and 105 in Florida...and she currently is only 164 delegates short of Obama. If she got the delegates that she is entitled to, based on the voter's ballots, she would be ahead of Obama, not behind.
Now you can understand the true reason she's not stepped down. A grassroots effort has already started, nationwide, demanding that Michigan & Florida's delegates be seated, as a reflection of the votes in those states. One thing that gets a politicians attention is a large grassroots effort....when it comes from all across the US...currently, that could equate to votes that could end up not being for a Democrat, in November...and that's the last thing they want!.
As for all Obama's "cool"....McCain is a seasoned politician...if his supporters think Clinton has been nasty...wait until he goes up against McCain. McCain will make him an appetizer...and not bother with lunch.
Posted by texastwin | 10.05.08, 22:15 GMT
My thoughts exactly!
Posted by Natalee | 10.05.08, 15:25 GMT
It's the Energizer Bunny. Not the Duracell Bunny. Otherwise a very entertaining opinion.
Posted by Grey Caravel | 10.05.08, 14:55 GMT
The Press has stated that it is over. The Obama camp has stated that it is over. Mrs Clinton hasn't.
All the odds suggest that it is over.
But the fat lady ain't sung yet folks!
And if Mr Obama has good advisors he won't think that it's over until it's over.
And he might start thinking about how, if and when it is over, he will handle the defeated Mrs Clinton, if defeated she is going to be.
My view: he could do worse than have a battle-hardened person on his team. Whether she will accept that, I don't know. But it would only be possible if she had a real, sizable role, not the typical VP role. Secretary of State role invested in the VP, maybe?
The bigger question of course is this: would the Clinton camp stymie a democratic ticket to try and win in 2012?
Certainly wouldn't mark them down as team players, would it?
So one question for America is this: do you like people who don't ask what they can do for America unless they get the top job?
Eh????
Posted by Rhys Jaggar | 10.05.08, 13:47 GMT
Mr. Norman...are you by good fortune a natural born American citizen? Regardless, you get my write-in vote for President.
Your "Black Knight" analogy is sheer genius!
(However Hillary DID get 72% of the African Swallow vote...)
Weve been trying to get rid of her for years. I know Catholics cant ascend to the British Throne. What about delirious Arkansans?
Posted by David Grant | 10.05.08, 13:13 GMT
Funny article. Loved seeing an outsider's point-of-view about our electoral system. To Alex Young, I beg to differ with you about the campaign money. Clinton started with a decided advantage in funds. However, Obama revolutionized campaign fundraising by using grassroots internet pledges and 1 million plus small donors. Clinton also spent vast amounts of money on the big states. So she began to run low on funds right around when she got to Pennsylvania. That is why Obama could outspend her by that much from Pennsylvania on. That's more about money management than anything else. Obama has run an organized, smart campaign from the start, while Hillary... not so much. Relying on big donors, mismanaging money, worrying only about big states, and assembling the wrong campaign team are the things that killed her. Hillary started with the most money, the Clinton name recognition, and an extensive political infrastructure. She lost because Obama ran a smarter campaign.
Posted by Jeff | 10.05.08, 10:37 GMT
Very funny. The Black Knight. Perfect. But.. but...but. I was not an admirer of Hillary but my goodness she shows steel (and with the sort of husband she has, she needed it). Why does the damsel stay the course? There must be a reason way beyond blind fury at losing the crown which seemed hers for the taking. That reason could be that the electoral arithmetic that has emerged in their nomination battle points to a possible win for McCain. Here is the Republicans elephant apparently lost in the forest without its trunk and yet it could win! Unbelievable. But then come 4 years on and who stands against McCain - dear lovable, tough-as-granite, Hillary. Certainly not Mr Obama. And if Obama wins. Who leads the Senate? Why Missus Hillary who can crack the whip and impose her will on Obama's agendas. How will Michelle take that? This will be a Soap to beat all Soaps.
Posted by Donald Last | 10.05.08, 10:24 GMT
Re : "..filthy glory.." Splended evaluation of a tiresome system. However,it is hard to believe that the enormous distraction and financial waste of The Primaries continues to exist. We appear to celebrate our own cussedness during this trying period , sometimes taking four years to elect a president who does more harm to the Nation than a tyrant might.
The minority that presses for change is always right, but that change can never be achieved at the polls. "Hope" for change is what the majority has appeared to express in this drawn-out fight, but as the saying goes " .it is easier to maintain the status quo than to change it. "
Posted by James | 10.05.08, 04:55 GMT
77 Comments