Why are we such suckers for self-promoters?

Maureen Dowd is sour on the subject of Hillary's tears.

...There was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing. As Spencer Tracy said to Katharine Hepburn in “Adam’s Rib,” “Here we go again, the old juice. Guaranteed heart melter. A few female tears, stronger than any acid.”

The Clintons once more wriggled out of a tight spot at the last minute.

Gosh, that's so unfair!  Gosh, I think Dowd is probably right. I also think Hillary is one tough cookie and has been since the year dot.  That's not such a bad thing.  The tears were interesting and timely and could be a simple result of stress.  They even well up in the eyes of "ordinary" people who, stalwart and tough, find themselves describing an apparent vulnerability.

What's way more interesting in a tight New Hampshire race  is how wrong the polls were.  This blogger stupidly dismissed one poll on Monday which showed a very, very tight race coming up.  Usually McClatchy is good with the hard information but the McClatchy MSNBC poll seemed too far out compared to a bunch of polls giving Obama a sure margin of up to 17%.  The McClatchy poll was a lot less generous.

Obama has a slim lead over New York Sen. Hillary Clinton overall, 33 percent to 31 percent, but he trails Clinton among registered Democrats, 33 percent to 30 percent.

So, there's more to the variance among the polls than just a couple of points.  McClatchy also had Obama winning big among independents.  Of course, independents are ornery creatures by nature.  What do you bet quite a few were not unwilling to switch their vote at the last minute just to show their independence from goddam pollsters?

Independents are no more feisty than Hillary.  Hillary is surely able to pull off tears, or able to build on their unexpected appearance, to save her political future.  That future is looking kind of crummy for all of us if Dowd is right about a candidate who shows no awareness of the extent of her own self-importance.

Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink. The people from Hope are arguing against hope.

At her victory party, Hillary was like the heroine of a Lifetime movie, a woman in peril who manages to triumph. Saying that her heart was full, she sounded the feminist anthem: “I found my own voice.”

Aargh!

Where the real vulnerability lies is not in Hillary Clinton but it what her narcissism could do to her party, much as George Bush's narcissism damaged the Republicans and the country.  The New York Times editorial presents the problem quite clearly.

Allowing her team’s wearyingly familiar strong-arm instincts to take over would be damaging for the Democrats in the fall, no matter who gets the nomination. Polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show that Democratic voters liked all of their candidates — they simply chose one. It would be a mistake for a politician whose unfavorable ratings across the nation have long been stuck in the 40 percent range to erase that good feeling about her party. ...Americans have had seven painful and disillusioning years. The last thing they want is for either party to drag out the old playbooks of division and anger. We doubt now whether Mr. Bush ever intended to deliver on his 2000 pledge to unite, not divide. Americans still want, and deserve, a leader who will fulfill that promise.

God forbid the inherent narcissism of contemporary American feminism could make that possible.

Comments

[Pug]

Gloria Steinem in yesterday's New York Times:

But what worries me is that he [Obama] is seen as unifying by his race while she [Clinton]is seen as divisive by her sex.

Ms. Steinem, however, has missed the obvious. Obama has tried to be unifying about his race while Clinton has been divisive in the use of her gender. If you don't think so, check out Taylor Marsh or some of the other blogs.

I'm also wondering where Bill Clinton gets off calling Obama's story a "fairy tale", and the "roll of the dice" bit on Charlie Rose is sure to be replayed by Republicans should Obama win the nomination. Is it his job as a former president to trash current contenders for the Democratic nomination? Or is it really all about him and his wife, just as the Republicans have always said? Bill Clinton better look out for a backlash. That from someone who liked him and voted for him twice.