by Duane Wells, Gay Wired

Everyone loves an underdog. It's a story as old as Hollywood and it seemingly plays out as well on the campaign trail as it does on the big screen.

Going into the Iowa caucuses last week and throughout the election process thus far, Hillary Clinton had been portrayed as the frontrunner, a role in which she had become quite secure.

Conversely, Barack Obama has been portrayed as the underdog or 'the little engine that could,' if you will. The overarching clash between the two Democratic titans was framed in the mold of the classic David vs. Goliath story, a framework that appears to have worked to Mr. Obama's advantage.

Humankind has forever shown love for the story of how David triumphed over Goliath, just as it has generally rooted for the little guy to triumph over impossible odds. As the first genuinely viable African-American candidate to run for president, Barack Obama epitomized this struggle.

While the press touted Hilary Clinton's inevitable coronation, the picture painted of Barack Obama was that of a scrappy outsider and agent of change. In the final analysis, just as in the movies, public opinion shifted to the more sympathetic character and Obama pulled out an unexpected victory in Iowa. The little known guy with the lofty ideas who might shake up the political status quo had won the day.

Honestly, Tinseltown's best writers couldn't have scripted it better, and it couldn't have made for better newspaper headlines.

Watching the whole Clinton/Obama Iowa drama unfold, I was reminded of what tends to happen year after year on American Idol. Early on in each cycle of the popular 'talent' competition, a real contender emerges who seems to blow away every other amateur on the stage. Week after week, that leading contender gets oodles and oodles of praise heaped upon them by Simon, Randy and Paula, which is generally validated by the bloggers and television reviewers whose job it is to handicap these competitions.

Then, one week, out of the clear blue sky, the leading contender winds up in jeopardy of going home as that one contender who has been bludgeoned and battered by both the judges and the press sails free and clear into the next round of competition based solely on sympathy votes of all those folks called to action by a combination of pity and an affinity for subverting public opinion.

Such is the general effect of the underdog syndrome.

Interestingly, this syndrome works both ways, as we all saw this week in New Hampshire. With only one loss, the pundits and the media leapt at the chance to crown Barack Obama the new Democratic frontrunner and to write off Hilary Clinton's bid for the White House altogether. But a funny thing happened on the way to the voting booths in New Hampshire.

The tide shifted and Hillary Clinton, the new underdog, picked up a groundswell of support, most notably from her base, which probably became energized by her political vulnerability. Now the candidate who was called the frontrunner until Iowa, then counted out before New Hampshire, was back in the lead after only the shortest of detours. Interesting, eh?

All things considered, losing Iowa may have been the best thing that could have happened to Hilary Clinton because the patina of her inevitable win has been stripped away. She is no longer the latest in a dynastic line, but just another candidate trying to do the right thing.

And we already know how well that plays with audiences.

© 2007 GayWired.com; All Rights Reserved.

Content provided by
Gay Web Monkey

Originally published on Thursday January 10, 2008.