Historic election presents real change

BY LINDA EVANS
Editor, RichmondNow

In a year when presidential politics is making history with the first woman and first African-American candidates with a viable chance of winning the White House, identity politics has not been—until recently—a prominent factor in the campaign.

Social change takes time, says Dan Palazzolo, professor of political science.

"Women, African-Americans and Hispanics have been making strides in the political arena. They've been elected to governorships, they've been elected to mayoral positions, and they've been appointed to important positions like secretary of state. This is just the next logical place where we would find a prominent female or African-American leader. It was virtually inevitable."

"Though both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama occasionally referred to the historic nature of their candidacies, each of them tried for most of the campaign to downplay race and gender, and appeal to voters on the basis of themes like change and experience," says Palazzolo. "This makes sense because even though Clinton's core supporters have been white, especially older women, and Obama's core supporters have been African-Americans, both candidates know they will need a broader appeal in the general election campaign."

However, since the Ohio and South Carolina primaries, gender and race have emerged as points of discussion. "As the campaign persisted and the similarities between the candidates over policy became even more apparent, identity almost inevitably became a major point of difference," Palazzolo observes.

With the Democratic race locked tight, Obama and Clinton each have challenges.

"Senator Clinton seems to think that it's important to establish national security credentials, and studies have shown that's a vulnerability [for her]," says Palazzolo, who thinks Clinton's strength is in domestic matters. "She knows those issues, she's articulate, she's very passionate about them. But she understands also that she will be evaluated on the basis of her national security credentials."

Clinton also "walks a treacherous metaphorical tightrope" that provides "a partial explanation for the love-hate reaction she elicits from at least part of the electorate," says Crystal Hoyt, assistant professor of leadership studies.

"In times of peril, people prefer a leader with masculine traits," says Hoyt. "These include assertiveness, aggressiveness and dominance versus concern and care for others—empathy."

Hoyt says Clinton "needs to be masculine in the sense of displaying confidence that she can lead through war, but at the same time, show that she's also a woman."

Obama is charismatic and articulate, and he appeals to people who crave national unity, says Palazzolo. "People are tired of partisan politics...and Obama has clearly tapped into that. He's saying to people, 'Let's get beyond these divisions,' and a lot of people are interested in that message." Palazzolo notes, however, that some people have doubts about Obama's ability as commander-in-chief, and Clinton used that doubt to create a television ad that questioned his ability to handle a crisis.

Even with his opponents acknowledging his superior speaking ability, Obama has shown less brilliance as a debater, according to many analysts. "Debates force conflict. They have to fight," says Paul Achter, assistant professor of rhetoric. "It runs against one of Obama's central campaign themes: unity. He's a conciliator, he embodies multiracial identity, and his politics reflect that...Unity is such a big part of his appeal and his campaign."

Since Super Tuesday, many observers have felt that Obama had avoided the careful scrutiny that frontrunners usually get from the media. "Hillary Clinton has tried to explain that to voters," Palazzolo says. "She tried to say, not so subtly, 'I've been vetted, and he hasn't.' Yet, Obama has faced criticism since the Ohio and Texas primaries. Still, any candidate is going to face much tougher attacks in the general election when 527 organizations will begin to launch ads. They can present pretty much any message they want."

However, Obama "seems to be three steps ahead of everybody and everything, but he has not faced a lot of trouble," Palazzolo says.

On the Republican side, John McCain won the nomination from what began as "a very fractured field." The crowded race helped McCain, who is not the darling of conservatives, patch together big victories in states with open primaries, says Palazzolo.

"McCain is going to do fine among Republicans" in the general election, says Palazzolo. "Voters respond to choices, and the choice that is going to be presented in the fall is the prospect of not only a Democratic president but also a Democratic Congress. So John McCain stands between four, or possibly eight, years of Democratically controlled government in Washington. That message will get out to Republicans, and they will vote."

The question, Palazzolo says, is whether Republicans will be energized and whether they will work hard on McCain's behalf.

His biggest vulnerability, Palazzolo believes, is the economy. "Suppose he can continue to argue that the surge in Iraq is working. ...That means the focus is going to shift to the economy." If McCain can't offer a compelling plan and the economy dips into a recession, "then it could be like 1992, when Clinton was saying, 'It's the economy,' and Bush was very aloof."

No matter who the Democrats ultimately choose as their nominee, "when we get into the general election, the choices change," says Palazzolo. "Even so, I think the Democrats have an advantage now in terms of enthusiasm, in terms of voter turnout and in terms of fundraising. But it's going to be a real test to see whether the American public is ready to elect either a female president or an African-American president. It seems to me that that question is still out."