Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
The major media outlets were the same, but I would argue that while generally they would be right but in this instance Hillary's perceived coldness and inhumanity is among (if not the) greatest objection many voters have to her. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, I believe that her showing human weakness makes us snicker at her, but at the same time helps us relate to her on a human level. Hillary is in the extremely uncommon position of being perceived as so calculating and so much of an insider that its a bigger obstacle to her nomination that she is too strong and political than that she exhibited weakness and foolishness.
|
Precisely. There were at least some undecided female voters that I heard interviewed saying that Clinton's show of emotion contributed to their decision to vote for her.
As for Obama, I don't think this loss is that big of a deal. First off, New Hampshire is an unusual state. A great deal of people voting made their decision at the very last minute, which worked to Clinton's advantage between her show of emotion and Bill Clinton's (unfounded) criticisms against Obama. This is also a big reason the polls were so off. Secondly, Clinton technically got more votes, but the two of them are tied in terms of delegates won in NH, and that's all that really matters. When it comes down to it, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are each very much still in the game. We'll see some of the impact of New Hampshire in Michigan, but it doesn't really matter there since they've been stripped of delegates. So, the next vote that really matters is Nevada, where Obama will almost certainly get a boost from the caucus system. In fact, I'm quite positive he would have won New Hampshire, and by a decent margin, were it a caucus and not a primary. This plurality method of voting we have is just plain terrible, and people need to have the opportunity to express their second choice.