Skeletons in the Closet

Generally, when deciding if I will or will not vote for someone, I go down a list comparing policies, values and personality. It had not occurred to me until I saw a poll on Super Tuesday coverage, to vote for someone simply based on whether or not they could defeat their opponent. I'm sure that most naturally competitive people (aka anyone involved in the world of politics) would prefer it if their candidate won, but I personally would not have listed it in the top 5 of my voting criteria. However, in an election environment where most people seem intent on simply getting rid of W and anyone who could be associated with him, it makes sense that electability would be more important. Once I had established the importance of this new criteria, I was not surprised to find out that Barack is deemed more electable than Hillary.

In an article in last week's NYT, Nicholas Kristof cites Barack as having the largest approval rating with Independents as well as the least downfalls to his candidacy. What I found interesting was that Clinton’s "personality and past history make her too polarizing to win independent and Republican-leaning voters". For a presidential candidate who's only true criticism is that he is young and too inexperienced, it seemed that this "disadvantage" played directly into the strengths of his campaign, namely his personality and image. Obama has not fluctuated much on his votes, views and media persona or collected many skeletons in his closet, simply because he has not been around long enough. While inexperience is still a critical determinant in his policies and effectiveness if he gets to Washington, it has only helped his point that he is a fresh, dynamic, agent of change.

Hillary on the other hand, has to fight against a long history of different personas, images, criticisms and choices. Navigating a past that includes playing the roles of lawyer, first lady, injured wife and state senator, she has had to reinvent herself in some way each time. To successfully fill each role, her image had to change, even if only slightly. Her presidential campaign has provided the magnifying glass for too-masculine-here, too-feminine-there past. While playing to a particular image at one point may have helped her, now it is impossible for anyone to lock down on exactly what her personality is, let alone have that personality inspire someone to vote for her.

While both images are no doubt carefully crafted by each campaign and the media, Hillary's simple existence in the political realm for a longer period of time, leaves more questions for her to answer. While Obama's practical inexperience may still provide him with some obstacles, the public's inexperience with him has allowed him to carefully and deliberately craft a compelling persona without the interference of a past.