Do you think Barack Obama’s treatment of Hillary Clinton is snarkier than it should be? Do you think he is as cold and calculating as any candidate can expect to be? Two Ohio blog friends of mine insist that if I’m underwhelmed by Obama, then I must not be paying attention.
But not only is that an unfair characterization of my feelings, it’s also untrue. And now, I’ve found support for that fact in this
Spiegel Online column by Gabor Steingart.
What resonated for me:
At the center of society, the place where elections are won or lost in every democracy, Obama the candidate has not triggered the kinds of earthquakes that would be necessary to topple the status quo. The ground may be trembling, but it isn’t shaking.
The deeper one penetrates into that all-important center of American society, the cooler are people’s reactions to Obama. In places where work is hard and pay keeps shrinking, where the costs of education are rising and the fear of job losses has taken hold, Americans pay attention to him but don’t support him. He may be touching the souls of blue-collar workers, but he hasn’t been able to inspire them.
And then:
All it takes to understand Clinton’s appeal is to observe the way people react when she speaks with voters in small groups, as she recently did in a lecture hall on the campus of the University of Nevada. Hardly any college students were in the audience, but about 100 middle-aged women, some of whom had even dragged along their husbands, sat around the candidate on folding chairs.
Clinton told her audience about the hard work waiting for her in the White House, about responsibility and about her view of herself as a problem-solver. No one cheered, no one jumped up from her seat and there were no choruses of approval. But the women nodded quietly in response to Clinton’s words. They didn’t seem fired up, but they did feel understood.
Watching the group, I realized that perhaps this election isn’t about visions at all, but about something even bigger: trust.
Now, I don’t know about Clinton and the trust thing. But the feeling understood? I can see that. Obama also makes certain sectors feel understood, but not others.
It feels to me like it’s a slugfest for who not only feels understood, but who feels so not understood enough, right now, and believes that they will be understood much more, in the future, that they will go out and vote for the person who makes them believe that.
As Steingart indicates, for some, it’s Obama, for others, it’s Clinton. And, simplistic though it may be and sound, it all boils down to who makes more people feel most understood.