WaPo has a front page story about how people have their doubts about Hillary Clinton as President.
Other quotes from the article: "People want to see authentic human beings, and she has overly managed herself." "It seems that her public image is different from her private image." "I find her too stiff and packaged."
All these quotes say roughly the same thing: That she's phony. But isn't that standard for a politician? Why is it a special problem for her? That's the question. Is it because we're so much more likely to compare her to Bill Clinton? But it's odd for us to think of him as the model of honesty! Perhaps we should prefer a leader whose falseness is easily perceived.
IN THE COMMENTS: We start with a good laugh.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२४ टिप्पण्या:
"She does not project a sense of what is inside of her like her husband did."
Um... Ewwww?
AAbout two week ago, Peggy Noonan got Hillary pretty much dead-on: "Hillary doesn't have to prove her guy chops. She doesn't have to prove she's a man, she has to prove she's a woman. No one in America thinks she's a woman. They think she's a tough little termagant in a pantsuit...."
See the link below for more.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008579
Man, that Peggy Noonan really knows how to tap into the American mind. They're all thinking: Termagant!
Termagant? Who writes like that?
"1 a harsh-tempered or overbearing woman.
2 ( Termagant) historical an imaginary deity of violent and turbulent character, often appearing in morality plays."
Are the Clintons characters in a morality play being acted before us?
"ORIGIN Middle English (sense 2) : via Old French from Italian Trivigante, taken to be from Latin tri- ‘three’ + vagant- ‘wandering,’ and to refer to the moon “wandering” between heaven, earth, and hell under the three names Selene, Artemis, and Persephone.
So is Hilary wandering up towards Selene or down towards Persephone?
A termagant by any other name...
Re: "termagant",
I think Noonan is merely avoiding the word that rhymes with rich.
she's up there in 'warmth' with Madame Mao.
Madame Mao? I know she was part of that whole Gang of Four thing after Mao died, but isn't Madame Chiang Kai-Shek the one who has the higher public profile in the US consciousness? There's that quote from Eleanor Roosevelt:
One night at dinner, the President asked in passing how she would deal with a troublesome labor leader like John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers. Without missing a beat, Madame Chiang passed her hand across her throat. Eleanor Roosevelt later said: "Those delicate, little petal-like fingers—you could see some poor wretch's neck being wrung."
And there's also the whole thing about proposing we nuke China to take it back for the Nationalists.
Moving on, for Clinton, I think the phoniness itselfis not actually all that problematic for me. My concern is the substance of what that phoninesss might be hiding -- whether underneath her "moderate" guise, she still wants to implement things like Hillarycare and all that. With her husband, after a few initial (failed) gestures at genuine left-wing policies, we saw him grow rightward, and adopt either increasingly trivial policies (V-chips, school uniforms, other "microinitiatives") or right-wing policies (welfare reform, NAFTA, DOMA, etc.) We didn't see that with Hillary Clinton, because she wasn't actually in office -- we have no guarantee that she'll be as beholden to the polls as her husband was. For all we know, she might revert to the principles she revealed in the early 90's, as soon as she attains the supreme office.
That said, I'd probably vote for her over McCain, who creeps me out. At least Hillary Clinton hasn't ever fostered a personality cult. It'd be like Jiang Zemin's personality cult if she did -- a sad, sad little thing.
Stranger's 9:11 reminded me of that scene from "Reversal of Fortune" where Alan Dershowitz remarks to a colleague (about Claus von Bülow) something like "How do you trust someone you don't understand?"
From a British perspective, it seems to me that Americans prefer to elect an optimist President (if they are given the choice) - eg. Teddy and RD Roosavelts, JFK, R Reagan. GW Bush was more optimistic than his rivals.
This is a matter of national character, and I find it an admirable trait - on the whole.
Bill Clinton came across as a genuine optimist, Hilary Clinton does not.
If HC runs against a convincing optimist such as C Rice or R Giuliani, she will probably lose.
Editor Theorist, I think you answered my question from the other thread about what it was we loved about Bill Clinton: optimism.
Thanks.
"That she's phony. But isn't that standard for a politician? Why is it a special problem for her?"
Because people don't like to have their face rubbed in it?
I've never seen her appear candid, in any interview or public appearance. Everything looks calculated to avoid having to be spontaneous. Perhaps its her lawyerly instincts or maybe she's just not able to operate that way.
Like him or not, Bill did stuff like play the sax on Arsenio Hall, HRC doesn't ever take a chance of looking that casual.
Hillary has such a "Message: I care" thing going for her.
She reminds me of a school superintendant, one that everyone fears, one who constantly harps about "the children" when she means to increase her power, one who talks about everyone as "family", only it's the kind of family where "walking on eggshells", obsequiousness, and frequent adulation of the boss is required.
I don't think her heart is really in it. Every time I see her, I see a conflicted baby boomer feminist who desperately has to prove to everybody that she can do anything Bill can do. She came to Arkansas! She raised the kid! Now it's her turn!
She belongs on some federal court, not in politics.
I think Americans want presidents who are outgoing, confident, and optimistic because these are qualities most citizens see as essential characteristics of the country and its culture.
In the case of politicians who have special (expert) knowledge of particular subjects, this knowledge is a much iffier thing when it comes to getting elected. Experts need to wield expertise very carefully and lightly if they seek national office.
I don't think people expect a politician running for president to be up to speed on every subject, or even many of them. What people look for is politicians who seem to have good all-around judgement and instincts, plus a personal warmth.
No one questions Hillary's competence (her political philosophy is another matter). Where she always comes up short is warmth. Seems to me you can "love" Hillary only from an ideological viewpoint.
Lack of warmth isn't necessarily fatal — see: Nixon, Richard M. But it does put a gigantic hurdle in her way.
But who knows what the Democrats — or the voters in general — will do in 2008?
Hilary "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" Clinton?
She is the very embodiment of punitive liberalism of the sort which has been out of favor nationally ever since Jimmy Carter's "Malaise" speech.
One other thing that I distrust in Hillary is her honesty and ethics. Remember, of all the Clinton scandals, the sex scandals were Bill's, and the scandals involving money and abuse of power were all hers (though he was complacent in them). Need I list them? Cattle futures; Whitewater; Rose Law Firm billing records; Bimbo erruption team; FBI files; IRS audits; presidential pardons for money; and finally, "accidently" removing WH furnishings, etc. when they departed.
The issue os Hilliary isn't that she is a phoney. It's that she is such an ameteur at it. That and she is also very un-likeable. When she is angry, she comes across like the nightmare ex-wife from hell. She says such obvious bullshit that she can't carry off being a phoney. Her entire life has been dedicated to radical leftist politics and it shows, despite the MSM silence on her radical past. How else can someone who votes for all abortions to be legal turn around and say that there can be some "middle ground" in the abortion debate and expect to not be called on it?
SGT Ted said...
"How else can someone who votes for all abortions to be legal turn around and say that there can be some "middle ground" in the abortion debate and expect to not be called on it?"
That's just it. She expects; nay, demands that she never ever be called on anything. It oozes out of her every pore, has soaked every fiber of her being.
I also support YetAnotherJohn's theory: a dense cloud of Know-It-All hangs malodorously in the air whenever she's around. She knows best, damnit, and don't you forget it you stupid peasant.
She doesn't want to be President. In her heart, she wishes to be Queen.
I have never seen so many perceptive comments about HRC on one thread.
To me she is a combination of Nixon (intelligence and calculating deviousness) and Carter (Jeff's know it all liberal) without their sparkling personality traits.
"The issue os Hilliary isn't that she is a phoney. It's that she is such an ameteur at it."
So true. You can tell when she is launching into a prepared statement. The animation drains from her face, especially around the eyes, and she repeats the phrase carefully, as if s is trying to hide that she has memorized it.
When Mrs. Clinton starts to run for President her opponent will endlessly replay tapes of her angrily yelling and pontificating...she has been captured numerous times in mildly hysterical rants...she is scary when you see these tapes...all the warm cozy positioning will be swept away...
Nixon was compared to a used car salesman. The comparison that occurs to me for little Madame Cattle-Futures is the knitters sitting by the guillotine. La Tricoteuse?
Sorry, Robert. I deleted that partly because of length, but mostly because it named a lot of people and asserted facts that could be libelous.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा