The XX Factor: What women really think.

Race, Sex ... and McCain

Now that Hillary's won New Hampshire everyone's falling all over themselves to ascribe racism as the cause —just as if she'd lost it would vindicate the view that Americans (unlike Brits or Germans) are fundamentally sexist. But I agree with Juliet that the New Hampshire result wasn't because in the privacy of the voting booth people won't vote for a black man. In the end, it was a close race between a woman and black man. If sexism and racism were the voters' secret vices, wouldn't we be talking about the stunning John Edwards' comeback? I hope we aren't going to have to listen to the sexist/racist dirge every time Hillary and Obama swap wins. Whoever gets the nomination, New Hampshire voters will have made her or him or her a better candidate. It would have been bad for either Hillary or Obama to feel she or he was the anointed one.

I agree with XXers that Obama's speech was better than Hillary's. I wanted more from her than plodding bromides. (And speaking of style [and sexism], I will dare to say it—was anyone else distracted by her jacket? Did she pull a Scarlett O'Hara and fashion a victory outfit out of the drapes at the hotel?)  But I found myself surprised by how moved I was by McCain's speech. I had written him off months ago as a gutsy, erratic, cranky guy whose moment had passed. But he has shown courage in standing by the war and the surge. (The Washington Post had an interesting editorial noting that none of the Democrats at the last debate were willing to recognize the progress the surge has brought.) And of all the candidates last night, McCain was the one who acknowledged something that people may not want to hear: that the new president will face not just recalcitrant insurance companies, but a world full of violent enemies.

The "I's" Have It

Aside from their different oratory styles, there was one important stylistic difference that becomes painfully apparent in the his and hers transcripts: Obama uttered the word I three times—including when he said "I want to congratulate" Hillary. Mrs. Clinton? More than 20 times. Obama is the "we" candidate; Hillary is the "me" candidate. Even when she says something mildly stirring—"This campaign is about people. It's about making a difference in your lives. It's about making sure that everyone in this country has the opportunity to live up to his or her God-given potential," for example—it all comes back to her: "That has been the work of my life."

Clinton critics like to describe her as power-hungry, but I don't know if that's the source of all the self-referencing. She's long given me the impression that she believes she knows what's best for me, for all of us, and we'll like it whether we like it or not. And no amount of humanizing or not-quite-weeping over coffee with the girls can get me past that.

The Authenticity Robot

Dahlia argued yesterday that Obama is appealing because it's simpler "to be yourself than to be a piece of precision machinery." At the outset of Hillary's victory speech last night, she claimed to have had an epiphany along these lines: "Over the last week, I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice." The crowd roared, and I was moved, too. I'm undecided still, but leaning toward Obama (even though he seems a little windy) because I think he has a better chance in the general election. When I heard Hillary's opener, I was momentarily convinced that her Iowa loss, the debate dust-ups, and the Diner Sob--and the seemingly positive voter response to all of it--had delivered us a new Hillary, one who can win: open, honest, authentic. But then the speech rolled on, and as the crowd subsided it became possible to hear the clanking of her political apparatus as it shifted from the Experience setting over to To-Thine-Own-Self-Be-True: "very full heart", "we all spoke from our hearts", "politics isn't a game", "this campaign is about people". A calculated pitch to show how authentic and uncalculated she is!

I'm happy about the New Hampshire results. It's great Democrats will have more time to make their decision. But I don't think Hillary the Authentic will be convincing for long.

Bradley Effect?

With all due respect to Chris Matthews, and a few of Slate's very own pundits, I don't buy the theory that the "Bradley Effect" explains why Obama lost New Hampshire—that voters "lied" to pollsters to seem progressive.  

Here's why, via Marc Ambinder: "the pre-election polls did NOT overstate Barack Obama's support. He averaged 36.7%, according to Mark Blumenthal's compilations," which is just under his actual piece of the pie—37 percent (with 95 percent of precincts counted).

So, what happened? The people who said they would vote for Obama probably did so, and undecided voters chose Hillary. Big whoop.

Did Hillary find her voice?

Some analysts have been arguing that many of the actual differences between Clinton and Obama are a matter of style rather than substance. But, wow, is that stylistic difference.... substantive. Watching the two candidates speak last night you couldn't escape it. Obama is all cute optimism checked by quasi-gravitas. His way of ducking his head and looking down at the end of sentences makes you feel secure and cozy inside; it suggests an untapped inner power. Never mind that his speech doesn't say very much at all, built as it is on repetition and rousing rhetorical flourishes about hope and affirmation. Hillary says more, but she continues to seem so ill at-ease; watching her try to play cool gal, making shout-outs to supporters as the applause died down, simply made me uncomfortable. 

I wonder if the biggest difference comes down to their voices. (Not their speaking styles.) Obama's is round and full and open. But Hillary always sounds as though she's not quite inhabiting hers- as if she is stuck using what some scholars call the "false voice," where the throat constricts. At other times, she seems as though she's trying to speak in a lower voice than is comfortable for her. I don't think this is a small point. As Anne Karpf points out in her fascinating book, The Human Voice, a lot of how we judge people's derives from what their voices subconsciously convey to us. She points out that over the past 50 years women's voices have deepened to a pitch closer to men's--a pitch we associate (if I recall correctly) with trustworthiness  and power. (Margaret Thatcher's voice, Karpf notes, "lowered by 60Hz, or about half the normal difference between a female and a male voice" while she was Prime Minister.) Watching that clip of Hillary's "emotional moment," I was most struck by how natural her voice sounded. She said she finally had found her true voice. Was it the way her voice sounded, as much as anything she actually said, that might have spoken to voters?