Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Yet another Hillary thumb-sucker

Slate Magazine: By John Dickerson
You might think that as a woman and a Democrat, Hillary Clinton's biggest challenge would be proving that she's tough enough to handle the presidency. So why is she play-acting and inviting the itchy parallels between the Sopranos' marriage and her own? Because Clinton's problem is not her qualifications. Democrats consistently tell pollsters that the senator has far more experience and leadership skill than her primary opponents.... "It's kind of cool that she's doing so well on all the guy attributes," says one of the female leaders in her campaign. Where Clinton doesn't do well is on the "softer" set of attributes—trust, likability, and the feeling that she's "just like us"—that help voters form a personal connection with a candidate. The Sopranos video is just one of the many ways Clinton's campaign is trying to solve the central dilemma of her campaign: Is she too polarizing to get elected?...

The Clinton candidacy poses a fascinating question for the ongoing debate among political scientists over whether emotion or reason drives voters. Many Democrats still debate whether in 2004 they should have picked Howard Dean, the flawed candidate who thrilled people, rather than John Kerry, who was stable, sensible, and safe. As Bill Clinton has said, Democrats prefer to fall in love with their candidates and Republicans fall in line. But now his wife is the fall-in-line candidate—the front-runner with the résumé, discipline, and organization. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate of the heart.


Barack does pretty well with my brain as well, Hillary less so. Her problem with me is less her intellect than her direction...and her indirection.

Meanwhile, check out the Slate Video on the linked site.
It's a bit balky, but has some nice scenes. Why does Hillary seem at her worst--that is, her most cloying-- when she is trying to be warm and friendly? (I guess if I can survive Bush TV appearances, I can probably survive Hillary, and the policies would be much improved. But does that have to be the choice?)

2 comments:

Simon said...

The job of a president is not to excite people. If we need such a president, we would have voted for a Michael Jackson or an Ann Coulter. A good president requires disciplines, political maneuvering, and sound thinking. Howard Dean didn't have the forementioned, and was defeated. Among the Democrats, only Hillary stands out. Obama is too similar to Howard Dean for his own good.

Alan Jay Weisbard said...

We disagree. Where to start? To become a good President, one has first to be elected (or appointed by the Supreme Court). For Democratic candidates to be elected (without the automatic financial advantages of establishment Republicans), they need to generate enough excitement to attract grass roots and union support and financial contributors.

Most people who might become good Presidents have the good judgment and sound self-regard not to undertake what is necessary in order to become President these days.

The job of a (good) President includes the capacity to mobilize the citizenry--and today, the world community--to take on critical tasks, to make necessary sacrifices, and to sustain difficult commitments--to achieve worthwhile goals (like saving the planet, not invading Iraq or Iran), as well as the wisdom to recognize the critical challenges requiring such mobilization. (I take FDR as the best 'recent' model).

I was skeptical of Howard Dean last time around, and I think the Dems have a number of decent potential candidates now (and some, including Al Gore, still in the wings). I simply don't agree with your assimilation of Obama to Dean (I think Obama is a deeper and much more deliberate thinker with a broader range of life experience and a less transient or single-issue attractiveness)--although he does, like Dean, generate the idealism and excitement necessary to mobilize supporters during the primaries. I fear Hillary (like Kerry, whom I supported last time) will prove an overcautious, establishment candidate (and, potentially, leader) who will alienate those seeking change.

I don't think Hillary herself is politically adroit, and I think her political maneuvering is pretty transparent. Unlike Bill, her personal qualities do not induce us to forgive (or even enjoy) that transparency.

Thanks for your comment, and feel welcome to respond further.