US Political Cleavages: When Sex and Race Collide

Albeit a questionable turnout, Hillary Clinton bested her fellow contenders in the Michigan primaries. Meanwhile, her supposedly closest contender, Barack Obama withdrew in the Michigan race for the state's violation of some agreements. For these, can it be said that the flower power is already on the scene? Or the blacks are still reserving their magic?

Accounts show that of the primaries the US Democrats ever organized, this year's election, so far, is the most sensational, most popular and highly publicized. Not only the Americans are awaiting the outcome but also the rest of the world. The result is significant not just on the aspect of international relations but also on the fact that the Democrat primaries is a battle of demographic cleavages in America – sex, and race. Too bad the battle will not spill-over to the November elections. Not unless Clinton represents the Democrats and Alan Keyes become the standard bearer of the GOP. This, however, is very unlikely as Keyes is always behind the scene as Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and John McCain continue to be the crowd favorites among the Republicans.

Female voters in the US are not noted to vote by bloc. With the performance of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, however, the tide seemed to turn in her favor. Latest polls show that female voters are now most likely to support their kind. Hence, if the Democrats will field the lady Senator, there is a greater chance that the party will win the presidential seat. In the very first place, turnout is higher among the female voters as compared with males.

The only issue against Clinton is her experience. She claims that aside from being a Senator, she was also in the White House as an active partner of the President and not just a mere First Lady. Records, however, show that her stint as a Senator has only borne a few legislative accomplishments to her name. Even her being an “active partner” of the president is being belied by reports. Instead, she is portrayed as “more of a sounding board than a policy maker, who learned through osmosis rather than decision-making, and who grew gradually more comfortable with the use of military power”.

Her alleged experience and track record has also been tainted when she voted for the White House proposal authorizing the war in Iraq. She contradicted this, though, saying that what she supported was the version of Chuck Hagel. But when it was raised that the records show otherwise, she defended that she was just misled to vote – a statement which further pulled her down. Thus, critics had been echoing filmmaker Michael Moore's “Do you want a president who is so easily misled?"

Obama, on the other hand, has been known to have more substantial and varied accomplishments despite the fact that he never worked in the White House, nor governed a state or at least run a business. He had served as a community organizer, a civil rights attorney, and a teacher. According to the Associated Press: He helped pass complicated measures in the Illinois legislature on the death penalty, racial profiling, health care and more. In Washington, he has worked with Republicans on nuclear proliferation, government waste and global warming, amassing a record that speaks to a fast start while lacking the heft of years of service.

The issues being thrown at him, though, apart from the “thin record”, is his dilemma to easily translate money, crowds and enthusiasm to votes. Of course, there are still issues being thrown at Obama most of which are coming from the Clinton camp – his kindergarten essay, cocaine, the fairy tale of his anti-war stance, and his going to Indonesia for his conversion to Islam. These, however, were later dismissed by Clinton's camp as jokes.

Even then, Obama had fared well in the polls besting all other Republican contenders. And on the coming November, many are expecting that the blacks will support him along with other ethnic minorities in the US. Initially, this is also the forecast of Bloomberg as it reported that Obama's surging black popularity may even tilt South Carolina. The only worry is whether or not the blacks will indeed go out and vote. This is because demographic studies across time show that turnout is low among the blacks. It was only during the candidacy of Lyndon Johnson that the gap between black and white turnout rates is very narrow, a little over 2%. The turnout rate for the blacks is 72% while for the whites, it is 74.4%.

But then again, the political battle between demographic cleavages will only be at the primaries. And within the Democratic party. As to who will win and be proclaimed as the standard bearer of the Democrats, nothing is certain yet.##

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary's Hampshire vote: A vote ad miserecordiam

The surprising performance of United States presidential aspirant, Senator Hillary Clinton, in the New Hampshire primaries defied two conventions – her husband Bill's belief that what matters is “the economy, stupid!” and the media polls showing her winnability rank below Senator Barack Obama.

In the December 16-19, 2007 ABC News/Facebook Polls, for instance, Hillary got only 45% as against Obama's 50% if the Republican contender will be the Rudy Giulani. Likewise, if the Republicans will field Mike Huckabee, Hillary will get only 50% while Obama will generate 52%. This is also being validated by the NBC News/Wall Street Journal Polls conducted in almost the same period. If the Republican contenders will either be Giulani or Huckabee, Hillary will only get 46% as opposed to Obama's 49% for a Giulani fight, and 46% as opposed to the African-American Obama's 48% for the Huckabee race.

Even the forecasts in new Hampshire alone shows that Hillary will be ranking either second or third in the primaries. But this time, Hillary bagged 39% as against Obama's 36.5%. The reason: women vote. Based on the polls conducted by New York Times, more women, especially those with ages between 45 and 59, tend to vote for Hillary rather than Obama. This, despite the fact that there is no such thing as a women's vote in the United States.

So what could the reason be for the unexpected turnout?

When Bill Clinton ran for presidency in 1992, he banked on the economy as the primary issue in his campaign. He pushed the idea that he is a better choice because his Republican contender, George H.W. Bush, had not adequately addressed the economy which was undergoing a recession at the time. For this, he won the elections with 44% popular vote as against Bush's 37%.

This time, however, the wife will not be carrying the economy as her major and foremost issue. Incumbent President George Bush has been boasting of a highly improved economy since 2006 and as such, the Democrats cannot ride on the economy to catapult their standard bearer in the presidential seat the way Bill did in 1992. For this, Hillary will be focusing on social welfare, health care, environment, and ending the war in Iraq among others. In a sense, “It is not the economy, stupid!”.

This being the case, and considering that Obama is also bearing the issues being carried by Hillary, what really is the factor that moved the New Hampshire vote? The answer: Her tears.

The teary eyed exchange between Hillary and a New Hampshire voter melted the hearts of the delegates that she earned a 3% edge against Obama. As reported by the New York Times, her swelling into tears is a reminder that Hillary is also a woman and that she also deserves a chance. Quoting Maureen Dowd of the New York Times: Getting brushed back by Barack Obama in Iowa, her emotional moment here in a cafe and her chagrin at a debate question suggesting she was not likable served the same purpose, making her more appealing, especially to women, particularly to women over 45.

Her “woman side” is also the reason why the female voters of New Hampshire are most likely to vote for her. This is also the observation of the Clinton campaign staff who saw the vote of the granite state as a response to the “emotional moment of Hillary as revealing so many sides of her personality.”

But can her tears lead her back to the Whitehouse? And can “her tears, stupid!” replace the “economy” as a springboard of the Clintons to the presidency? Well, these remains to be seen.##

Sphere: Related Content

Erap's new blunders for the New Year

By trying to stay in the limelight, former president Joseph “Erap” Estrada issued pronouncements last Sunday that forged a sword awaiting to further divide the opposition and raised a hammer to totally disintegrate his own credibility. Are these his new year's gifts to Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to whom he owes his liberty or it just happened because his public relations guru has lost a magic touch?

One of Estrada's pronouncements is the publication of his autobiography. He promised to write a book on his exploits as a movie icon and an influential political figure including his life during the days of his ouster up to the time he became a detainee. The book will also feature exposés on graft and corruption and name some public officials who committed such crime.

But while the book is welcomed to understand his version of the EDSA II, many are curious with regards the chapter on graft and corruption. Will he be man enough to face the consequences of his exposés or is he just cooking something to rattle some public officials whom he can later pull by the nose? These, though, remain to be seen but predictions favor more the blackmail angle rather than the exposition of the truth. First and foremost, Estrada is afraid of getting detained so it is most likely that he will fold down when threats of libel mount. Consider his tacit admission of being a plunderer than continually denying the charge and be detained in Bilibid.

Second, power meters show that Estrada's political grip is on the decline. He was convicted of a crime; he lost his face by admitting, instead of legally battling, the charges against him; he is drastically losing his millions because the government started confiscating his properties particularly those involved in the plunder case; and, reports that he threw his hat in favor of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo during the 2004 elections are already leaking. Thus, many are thinking that the chapter on corruption and corrupt officials are just to draw the rattled officials on his side as he possess aces against them.

In a sense, the book is intended not only as a reaffirmation of Erap the action hero but also as a “hook book”. Not unless he already gained guts or, at least, Mrs. Arroyo's support by using the exposés in “cleaning” the present administration – a move beneficial to both parties for their image-building purposes. But if this will be the case, a serious setback awaits the ousted president – a validation of his alleged deals and questionable political relationship with Arroyo.

The “hook book” and the declining political grip is also manifested in Estrada's public invitation to Vice President Noli De Castro to the united opposition (UNO) and be its standeard bearer come the 2010 presidential elections. Said pronouncement stirred a large portion of the members of the opposition who are also eyeing Mayor Jejomar Binay and Senator Panfilo Lacson to the presidential race. The list does not even include yet the factions favoring Senators Loren Legarda, Chiz Escudero and Manny Villar.

Worse, the agitation caused by the pronouncement can already be heard publicly. The most vocal is Lacson who said that “the Jeep ni Erap is already full so why still hitch De Castro?”. Even civil society organizations (CSOs) sympathetic to UNO also expressed their worries against the statement. These are being manifested in the reports that a greater number these organizations are now starting to severe ties with the opposition. It is to be noted that the CSO's have an axe to grind against De Castro as the vice president did not support the EDSA 4 by agreeing to succeed Mrs. Arroyo.

The statements of Estrada has also created additional cleavages within the opposition. For instance, there is already a debate going on in the opposition grapevine with regards the loyalty of the former president. Some are thinking that Estrada has already swayed in favor of the administration as taking De Castro would mean having a weaker standard bearer for the 2010. Taking De Castro would also mean ignoring the members who remained loyal to the opposition despite the pressures from Malacanang. These include Binay who clung to UNO despite the charges imputed against him. Others also also take cues from the statements of Estrada immediately after he was released from house arrest last year. Estrada not only expressed his gratitude for Arroyo but even asked the Filipinos to support her.

But whether or not the claims that Estrada now supports the administration remains to be validated. Even then, his new year's message has caused some blunders that further eroded his credibility.##

Sphere: Related Content