Every national election teaches us something, not only about the candidates, but also about ourselves as voters and, sadly, about the weaknesses of modern democracy.
The 2000 election taught us that in an evenly divided electorate, a third party candidacy can enable the winner of the popular vote to be the loser. We also learned that a ruthless campaign manager/strategist can figure out how to "win" an election, even when his candidate loses the popular vote. And, of course, we learned that it is possible to steal an election if you are bold enough, if your brother is governor of a crucial state and can scrub the voting rolls, and if you have campaign staff thugs who are willing to pose as ordinary people demanding that a legal recount be stopped.
In 2004 we learned that fear, partly based a real threat, but stoked by lies and exaggerations, can determine the outcome of an election and that "independent" groups can spread lies about a candidate they oppose and sink that candidate's chances. We learned, in other words, that you can lie your way into the White House.
In this election, there are already lessons. Just yesterday we learned that "poverty" will never be the most important issue in a campaign (the corporate media will not allow it to be) and that the candidates who survive in a primary are always the ones with the most money and the most media fascination. We also learned that strategy counts, you can't skip the early primaries and expect to win, and fear isn't the issue it was four years ago. Invoking 9/11 and Islamofascism simply isn't enough to get you the nomination. Even though John Mccain continues to talk about terrorism and Islamofascism, exit polls in Florida revealed that the voters who cared most about the economy as well as the voters who want us out of Iraq cast the most votes for John MCain. So Republicans are voting for McCain not because of his desire to stay in Iraq indefinitely, but in spite of it. Hence, another lesson: voters choose candidates for reasons other than the issues.
What does this mean for the Democratic primary? Who knows? The Democratic electorate seems evenly divided between support for the first woman candidate and the first black candidate. Reading the blogs, and especially the comments by ordinary citizens at the end of the blogs, indicates that this primary is one big Rorschach test, with voters seeing what they want to see in their candidate, or as Bill Clinton says "In the primary, you fall in love with a candidate."
Some people have fallen in love with Hillary Clinton because, after sixteen years, they believe she is a known commodity, or because she is a woman, because they believe she will advocate for woman's issues much better than a man, because they actually want Bill back in the White House, because they trust she can be as good a commander in chief as any man, because she is tough enough to stomp on Republicans. They see Obama as too untested, no matter how good he sounds.
Others have fallen in love with Barack Obama. They like that he is a fresh, new face, that he doesn't have sixteen years of baggage, political loyalties, and corporate interests to define him. They contrast his strategy of uniting diverse groups of people to build a large majority including non-Democrats, in his campaign, rather than pulling together specific interest groups to eke out a 51% victory. They like listening to him, and being inspired by him, and they think those are just as important in getting the country to unite behind a president as are years of experience and toughness.
In the end, what I am learning is that in the Democratic primary voters are divided between trusting someone they know from the past, because of her intelligence and in spite of her baggage, and trusting someone less known, whose oratory, confidence and intelligence inspires them.
How this will all come down on Super Tuesday, is anybody's guess.
