Hannah Mintz reviews last week's dramatic Democratic primary and looks ahead to the upcoming contests They are certainly the most famous tears -- or rather non-tears -- of this 2008 election cycle. Many believe Hillary Clinton's emotional response to a voter's question sealed her surprising victory in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire on 8 January. In any case, the episode opened up a hushed debate that had long been on American minds: can a woman be trusted to lead the country? Coming in to the New Hampshire primary, Clinton's campaign seemed doomed. Barack Obama jumped ahead of Clinton in the polls following his electrifying victory in Iowa. But in the final days before the vote in New Hampshire, the former first lady swung enough undecided voters to secure a vital victory. Clinton's campaign received an unexpected boost from her involuntary show of emotion on the day before the election. Clinton held back tears while answering a voter's question at a discussion in a diner. Since Americans could replay the episode over and over through YouTube and streaming Internet video, the tearful episode made an especially large splash. It seems women voters in particular responded to Clinton's emotion. An experienced journalist in Washington said it felt like the response of every working woman she knows, including herself. "You get a lump in your throat, and then you toughen up, put on your lipstick, head back out to the office floor, and get back to work," she said. Voting in larger numbers than men, women were crucial to Clinton's victory in New Hampshire. They gave 46 per cent of their vote to Clinton, who had lost the female vote to Obama in Iowa. Obama came in second with 34 per cent of women's votes. While Clinton did not shed actual tears, her watery eyes and cracked voice countered her image as an automaton. Clinton's choke-up achieved in seconds what her campaign had been seeking for months: to make her seem more human. Nevertheless, a keen political observer said her tears were absolutely not calculated. This source pointed out that the campaign did not publicise this episode to its supporters, as it does with news deemed positive. For Democrats, the incident may have evoked the painful memory of Ed Muskie's downfall in 1972. Similarly on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Muskie cried while defending his wife's character. Though he claimed his tears were melted snowflakes, Muskie's misting resulted in his loss of the nomination to George McGovern, who was crushed by Richard Nixon in the general election. So why did the pollsters get it wrong? One source in Washington called New Hampshire a notoriously "fickle" state. New Hampshire voters, another said, "don't like to be told foregone conclusions." While in many states undecided voters tend to support the candidate on the rise, New Hampshireans like the underdog. Besides helping secure her first victory, Clinton's hint of emotion has ignited a discussion of women in power, extending far beyond the borders of New Hampshire. Some have used the episode to support the traditional argument that women are too emotional to hold power. Others, like noted feminist Gloria Steinem, called Clinton's response courageous. One source in Washington said he hopes this will force people to confront the fact that men and women are different, but that women are no less qualified for executive office. Political tears do not always cause an uproar. Bill Clinton was known for biting his lip during emotional swells. President George W Bush, too, has shed his share of tears. The profusion of commentary on Clinton has prompted some to discuss the double standard placed on female politicians to appear tough. Since her latest victory, the senator from New York seems to be changing the face of her campaign. After her loss in Iowa, Clinton projected an image of experience, surrounding herself with stalwarts of her husband's administration. During her victory speech in New Hampshire, on the other hand, young people appeared on stage with the candidate. A veteran political operative in Washington expects this to be a lasting change to her campaign strategy. He thinks former president Bill Clinton will take a more back-seat role in the upcoming primaries and caucuses. The next two important Democratic votes are the Nevada caucus on 19 January and the South Carolina primary on 26 January. If Clinton is to continue her momentum into these contests, she will have to overcome advantages gained by Obama. The senator from Illinois recently garnered the support of two important labour unions in Nevada. But, since only a small percentage of registered voters participate in caucuses, the outcome in Nevada is difficult to predict. South Carolina will be an even more crucial bout for the candidates who have been courting the black vote in the state for months, as African-Americans are expected to comprise a majority of voting Democrats. The primary will test whether African-Americans believe the country can elect a black man. Obama's victory in Iowa, a predominantly white state, may have reassured sceptical black voters of Obama's ability to win. Still, a prominent Democratic political strategist expects the black vote to break along lines of age demographic. The source expects Obama to win among younger African-Americans, and Clinton to secure a majority of votes from older African-Americans. Obama's appeal to black voters is obvious. He would become the first black president of the United States. But Clinton hopes to inherit the strong African-American support enjoyed by her husband, who is sometimes jokingly called the first black president. However, the Clintons have recently been reproached by prominent African-Americans because of two controversial comments. former president Clinton called Obama's campaign a "fairy tale", and Hillary Clinton stressed the centrality of executive action in bringing about the civil rights changes of the 1960s. Some black leaders say these remarks diminish the civil rights movement. In light of these comments, Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina is considering supporting Obama. Clyburn is the highest ranking African-American in Congress, and his endorsement would carry significant weight in his home state. The world is watching to see whether Clinton will have success among black women in South Carolina. The question for black women has been: will gender trump race, or will race trump gender? Oprah Winfrey, America's most visible black woman, endorsed Obama. Many political analysts agree that no matter the outcomes in Nevada and South Carolina, the battle for the Democratic nomination will continue at least through 5 February, when more than 20 states hold their primary elections. Clinton speaking in South Carolina said: "I'd never thought we'd see the day when an African-American and a woman were competing for the presidency of the United States". In the decades since the 1970s, the feminist and civil rights movements in America have lacked energy and momentum. In this historical primary, with neither frontrunner being a white male, the issues of gender and race are coming into play as never before. John Edwards, who is a white male, has been polling between 10 and 20 per cent. In New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton's teary eyes brought the gender issue into focus. But as the South Carolina primary approaches, a discussion of race is bound to dominate American politics. It remains to be seen whether issues raised during this election will awaken the dormant social equality movements.
