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.
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.
posted by Cara Lee at
8:06 PM
2 Comments:
As I have watched the campaign coverage it has become quite evident that the media plays one of the largest roles in shaping the public's opinion of each candidate. The more material a candidate gives the media to digest the more material the media has to craft the image of a candidate for the public. While candidates do not always readily give the media information for them to decipher, when politicians are in office for an extended period of time they create an image of themselves that the media can portray or skew to the American public. I definitely agree that Obama's brief career in Washington has allowed Obama to shape his image without much interference from the media however candidates such as Hillary Clinton and John McCain who have been in the public eye for a long time are open to the media’s interpretation of their image.
From the moment Obama announced his campaign for the presidency he has shaped his image as a mythical figure. His speech on the steps of the capitol in Springfield, Illinois where Abraham Lincoln served, shaped his image into that of a legend during this stage of surfacing. This mythical legend image has seemed to carry over into how the media has portrayed him in their political coverage. For a long period of time it was rare to hear anything negative said about Obama. Though the coverage has evened out in terms of criticisms, no one can underestimate the profound impact of Obama’s campaign has had on the public by shaping his image.
I like your comments about electability. I would agree that when candidates arise and battle it out that it is less about what the candidate believes, but more about if people would vote for him. I think it is something the Republican party was having trouble dealing with having McCain as the front runner. He may have been far and away the favorite Republican of the people, but the Republicans in washington hate this guy. In this case I think it benefitted the people, but in your example about the Democrats I think it is hurting them. Barrack is clearly the more electable candidate and Hilary is losing votes because of it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home