Obama Wins the Popularity Contest ... Clinton wins the Favor of Pissed Off Women Nationwide

Before I begin let me admit my bias: I am a woman. In order to be fair I will also tell you I am a white, 24 year old female with a great college education, no debt, great credit, parents who have given me a lot and who have worked hard to build a lot for themselves. I am a registered independent in MA solely because I believe it is fair to have every name on a ballot. I have never voted for a republican. My parents are republicans. They are also registered independents. They vote republican in nearly every election. Obvious exceptions include the fact that they voted for Ted Kennedy in the last Senate election. I do not care for wine or beer. In fact, I am not a big drinker at all but when I do drink it is gin and tonic. I shop at whole foods. I shop at Shaw's. I shop in the closest supermarket to my home. I always buy organic even though it costs more. I believe our country is facing a health crisis that could be remedied if we adopted better policies in what we accept as edible. Europe has higher standards for the food they will eat. My high priced yet "liberal" food choice stems from my understanding of nature and not any "high-minded, well-to-do" cockiness....

I support Hillary Clinton.

I am not a poor democrat, nor am I a feminist. Yeah it pisses me off that no matter what she does during this campaign or during her presidency (should she be elected) - no matter what she does - she WILL be chastised. This did not swoon my support. I have been in the Hillary camp for nearly a year now. Obama was my choice a year ago when I harbored an anti-Hillary sentiment. This sentiment was and still is shared by many.

I agree that she is not likable. If you look closely at alpha-females, not many of them show a likable face to the world. There may be something behind that. Or perhaps it is that we expect a likable woman to be charming and equate that with gullible. Above I said "not many" - I do know of some who have been able to show a likable quality with their strength; the late People's Party Leader of Pakistan, Benizeer Bhutto. Her clout had been established and her political persuasion was effortless. She was a woman of great courage, great strength and whom the People knew because of her family's legacy. Her death came during one of her courageous displays of affection toward her supporters. Her supporters already believed she could do it. Her kindness and softness could be displayed safely (and by safe I mean, without changing the minds of her would-be voters during the weeks leading up to a vote). Hillary Clinton can not do that here. I can not explain the phenomenon - I could only postulate the reasons why. The "why" does not matter here, though. The truth is something we can all feel...

The truth is this: let us all fast forward to the day after the 2008 election for presidency. Let us pretend Hillary has won. Everyone will be watching and waiting for her to make a mistake. Since we do not expect emotional displays from her we will not be pulling the "crazy emotional woman" card on her. That card is too easy but definitely hurts the majority of women who want to be the Cheif. We will likely be poised to criticize her competency in other ways. Say Hillary were to engage in the political game of "You scratch my back - I'll scratch yours" with lobbyists campaign money funding special laws that rig the market for them. I believe that every competitive politician engages in lobbyist deals. But - should Hillary make such a move and compromise the safety or welfare of the people - she is going to lose popularity. Hillary has thick skin. She knows ALL of this. She knows that the problems on her desk on day 1 will be lose/lose situations. In the past 7 years these problems have shifted the losing to us - taxpayers. In fact, they have shifted the loss the other loss and then a little more because the reparations for the loss have to be payed for too after the litigation fines some organization that then bills the gov't.... us... tax money...

However these problems are addressed beginning on day 1 will be viewed as a poor move and reports will criticize Hillary in every way for it. They will word it that she is doing something corrupt or she is hurting the economy. The truth will be that she is shifting the costs off of the middle class tax payers but we will hear it differently. Hillary has thick skin. The anger at nay-sayers is enough to prove them all wrong... Hillary will persevere and deliver and give our economy and middle class the redemption it so desperately needs. It will be tough and tedious. The details will be boring and the benefits to us will be arrived at slowly but steadily over time. She will need 2 terms to do this. But she will persevere.

With more money in our pockets and a feeling of hope for our future it will be a good time for me to feel like uniting. Global Warming will be a huge issue among others, perhaps. The world is going to start throwing up on us and natural disasters are going to throw us into a shock. We all know this. Barack Obama would be a great president after we are back on our feet.

Right now the likable card is helping him. He is the "Great Uniter." In times of desperation we are really loving escapism in this election. We escape to the nostalgia that his booming voice and oratory skill bring us. You hear him speak and you just get chills. It reminds you of the Kennedys for sure. But Barack Obama looks different - so he is able to claim the "candidate of change" title. We believe it. Of course we believe it - show me one candidate in either party that is a candidate of status quo... there are none. Not one single candidate will stand up and say "Bush is doing a fabulous job and I plan to continue his work"

Every candidate is a change candidate.

So let us go back - why do we escape and why would we not want a uniter. Ok - let us see: we are in troubled times and we need someone who can work miracles. Barack Obama feels like that miracle. I wanted to chant "Yes We Can" the other night - I got so mesmerized by his NH concession... but... unite ..for what? In anticipation of the inevitable recession? Why are we uniting? Our pockets are empty and our futures look hopeless. When the election is over and (imagine) Obama is president we have moved on from the warm fuzzies in anticipation of the miracles that will come. "We" don't do anything. We watch him do his job. Or we don't... really watch at all. The media will inform us when he does something amazing though... but what would happen...? We don't know... but let us imagine. Newbie rookie takes BIG office and has MAJOR problems on his desk on day 1. MAJOR problems. Lose/Lose problems. Moral conundrums. In pour the predatory lobbyists with petitions in the form of answers. In pour colleagues who know the ropes up there and have their own lobbyists' interests in mind too... Obama picks his closest advisers and the nature of his decisions begin to take shape. If he plays the game of let's make a deal with no major shake ups he gains acceptance. What do we see in the news? A little token motion on his promises and nothing much in terms of huge changes. We see... nothing new. We see really slow movement in the direction we want to go but nothing like the wildfire movement of his campaign. The ride ends when the job begins. The job is tough. Deval Patrick experienced this phenomenon after his exciting campaign (which I supported and felt excited about). He is facing a lot of "no go" from congress right now. He is escaping this criticism by living vicariously through Obama's primary campaign -- it reminds him of the campaign he was in - sometimes the chase is more fun than the prize. I still believe Patrick is doing a good job but I don't think we are seeing him making wildfire reform changes that are resulting in wildfire reform changes in the jobs and health care in Massachusetts. Those results are assessed at the end of a term. That is how slow they are. Patrick can do it - I believe that now as I did when I voted for him - but I also believe his current escapism is a good example of how real world this decision is for us. A state election is one thing and the problems to fix in a state are smaller than in a country. Right now in America we desperately need someone who already knows what changed in gov't to change the economy from good to bad in the last 8 years. We need someone who is well connected nationwide and globally and knows how to weed out the most imperative issues from the pile and multi-task on them ALL simultaneously. Hillary can because she has the experience. Her competency is unmatched by any candidate of either primary race. Her ability to multi-task is clear (and - let us be honest - us girls can multi-task). Her ability to look at the economy as a whole will be a refreshing change to the way it has been viewed as "a bunch of bottom lines/focusing only on the ones that matter to me" for a long time now. Hillary knows what to do on day 1. This may be another reason why the supporters aren't pouring in. She can't be wooed. She can't be influenced. She is also the automatic loser in the popularity contest and she is not exciting....

But I think voters are taking their ballot choice more seriously than ever before. Voters in primary elections are generally people who care more than the average Joe (or Jane) about who they want the president to be. While Obama's rallies have become like sold-out rock concerts, Hillary's supporters come out in droves to the polls and exit quietly as a strong and silent force. Their knowledge of the issues is vast. Their strength in support is unwavering. They are not there for the hype or to join the wave of the populous. They are there to do what they know needs to be done to get their candidate on the November ballot. Obama may draw crowds but the crowds are there to chant. Many of them are too young to vote or unregistered in the state they attend college in. They like the feeling they get when they chant with Obama and they feel a pseudo nostalgic connection with the college kids of yore who used to protest real issues - like the war! Our college kids don't do that anymore. They are less connected to the other kids their age who serve our country. Their friends aren't dying in combat. Their friends are attending college. Their friends are attending political rallies on the weekdays and keg parties on the weekends. Their friends are partially informed on the goings-on in the world (if they care a little) and are making assertions based on some biased source of information they have never experienced first hand accounts from. Their friends may also be the average kid who really doesn't get politics and has a faint care for who wins but probably would only attend a rally if Kanye West spoke at it. Our college kids are in a bubble and it is a nice bubble that has been appropriately formed so education can happen in an environment that is free from real world biases and pressures. But our college kids lack real world experience and real world responsibility and accountability. They take stands on issues at times but the issues are often irrelevant to real world issues and very self-centered. If they are humanistic issues they are often one of the many issues and we all sort of look at them and say - "wow, you just heard about that now?? That BS has been happening for years... if you care about that issue in that far away land you must know about this issue going on in our land..." (and ask them what they think about some similar problem in the homeland) - they look at you as selfish for caring about Americans more than the impoverished who are far away and stick to their unorganized and slightly informed stands. College kids want to get out there and make changes in the world but they really don't anymore. They get out there and immediately succumb to the debt of their loans and the pharma job that pays more than a sales job that is not so crooked. They wanted to be an influential law-maker who would change the system but ended up working for a big firm that pays in the aftermath of an expensive legal battle via some abuse of the systems in place.

By the way, I work in a sales job. It is clinical in nature but we are subscriber funded. We don't take money from advertisers. We can't be biased because our name can only thrive by credibility. We're credible and the job is a piece of cake. We don't even make commission. In a sense, you really can't call this a sales job. I defend myself every time I tell someone I work in medical sales though. To some it seems weird. I am positive there are a lot of old friends who would be impressed if I told them I was a pharma sales rep. To me that is disgusting. To me it is morally corrupt and scummy and my bottom line is morality.

To me, it is Hillary, a woman... a bottom-line focused, multi-tasking, morally minded woman. Her bottom lines are moral. The economy of the nation over that of her fund sources. The wealth of the middle class and the hope of families in America over the share prices of the countries biggest companies who are getting richer by selling our country's assets to China and selling our wealth and potential for another hit. Money is crack to the top 1/10 of 1% of income earners in America and it is killing us all. We need Hillary in 2008.

I'll unite with you all when my pocket is full again.