I didn’t fully “get” Bill Clinton’s appeal until 1999 when watching him deliver his State of the Union address. The phone rang soon after that Democrat started speaking, so I put the TV on mute and took the call. As I spoke to my friend, I watched the then-president and was captivated by his performance. I had to admit that the man whom I often mocked looked presidential.
But, when I ended the conversation with my friend and turned the volume back on, I found that Clinton’s speech was little more than well-delivered platitudes, devoid of substance. I turned the volume up when I went into the kitchen (I was thus unable to see the TV) to do the dishes and found his speech increasingly vapid.
I had a similar experience last week while doing cardio at the gym. I saw clips of Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) speaking to the Take Back America Conference. Lacking headphones, I could not hear their remarks. With his chiseled face, Kerry, the erstwhile Democratic presidential nominee, looked presidential. Hillary, a prospective Democratic presidential nominee, looked like an angry divorcée* addressing the PTA. She doesn’t have the presidential presence of her husband. No wonder the latest Iowa poll showed her slipping. That survey may well be harbinger of her performance in the Democratic primaries and caucuses in ’08.
A few days later when I saw clips of the speech with audio, both Kerry and Clinton sounded the same, whiny, bitter, angry. Given the way Kerry looked, it was no wonder he bounced back after the first presidential debate in 2004. Given the way Hillary looked, it’s hard to see how she can convince those skeptical about her leadership qualities that she has the gravitas of a Chief Executive.
Contrast Hillary’s presence with that of a female conservative icon — Lady Margaret Thatcher. While against her husband, Hillary fades into obscurity. (Just as Denis Thatcher seemed to disappear when in the presence of his wife.) Next to Ronald Reagan, Mrs. Thatcher held her own, two great leaders standing strong and confident.
Or contrast Hillary with her more accomplished California colleague, Dianne Feinstein. One day in the 1990s when was working on Capitol Hill, I walked over to the Senate side just as a vote was being called. As I passed through an elevator lobby, I saw a number of Senators (whose faces I recognized from the news). Mrs. Feinstein was the only one who stood out.
After watching those images from the conference, I became increasingly certain that Hillary is going to have a much tougher time than people think winning the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. To be sure, her husband may pull out all the stops to help her win the nomination — and the election. But, standing next to him at the Democratic convention in ’08, her lack of gravitas will be made increasingly manifest. People will become less confident of her ability to lead.
It’s no wonder Hillary’s gradually losing her status as the Democratic frontrunner for 2008. She seems to be as Peggy (AKA My Athena) described her 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention, “full of certitude and lacking in sincerity.” She appears to stand only for whatever is politically expedient, and lacks the presence of a leader, the sense that she could take charge the moment she takes the Oath of Office. Lacking particularly the wherewithal to stand strong in a crisis.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
*My Athena once wrote that when Hillary “speaks to a sympathetic audience eager for red meat her voice becomes high, harsh, grating–the first wife that your nice husband fled.”
I heard an extended clip of Hillary the other day – hectoring some audience; perhaps the same speech you heard? – and thought the same thing.
In fact, I could not believe my ears. “High, harsh, grating” doesn’t cover it. “Screeching and hateful” could come a little closer, though even those words seem lacking.
Honestly, her tone of voice reminded me of Adolf Hitler at his most emotional (i.e., hateful). (He was on a PBS special some weeks back.) I thought to myself, “No way is America going to vote to have 4 years of that. Not even Democrats.” On the campaign trail, surrounded by handlers, she can bottle it up some – but then her opponent(s) will just have to bait her a little.
P.S. And with Kerry a walking dead-man-who-doesn’t-know-it (as he now attempts to re-fight the Swift Vet battles that exposed the hollowness of his whole “I’m a war hero – did you know I’m a war hero?” shtick)… let’s see, I guess Movie Star Al will ultimately win the Dem nod??
Hateful? Hillary? ….But the Democrats are dining on a political-diet of hate and loathing, and will continue to for the next three years. The Democrats are going to the polls in a vengeful, spiteful mood with blind Bush-hatred filling their miends with delusions of wiping away years and years of Bush in an acid sea-change. After the Kerry2004 election experience, the 2008 Democratic Convention with be a seathing caldron, not a love-fest. They will be eager and primed for the traditional ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer speech from the rostrum; and will be marching in circles for hours, singing.
All Hail St, Hillarybeast!
THey aren’t in the mood for clear or even clever political joisting, they want blood, and aren’t going to scruple (much) about how they get their revenge through. They’ll look at the line-up of seven dwarves competing against her…be reminded of the Kerry-Edwards picket they selected from 2004’s rooster of political lightweights who ran against Bush in 2004…swallow-down the bile in their throats…and proclaim, “St Hilllarybeast, Hail!”
It’s not 1994, nor even 1992 for the Democrats…it’s 1932 in der Homeland.
#3: LOL!! What is it about Hillary that gets you guys so hot for her and swastikas? Sheesh! I’ve got news for you: Hillary WON’T be the Dem nominee in 2008. She is tying herself to Bush’s Iraq occupation albatross. By the time she realizes her mistake, her candidacy will be doomed. I will also predict that the Dem nominee will not be a Senator (sorry Russ).
You are so out of touch with what’s happening among the Dem rank and file, it’s hillarious. But I suppose it can be excused when even your blog heroes like instapundit make similar stupid observations that they subsequently have to retract. Get a clue: you’re going to lose Senate seats in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Montana to a new breed of Dem that the grassroots is supporting. And not one of those soon-to-be Senators is one of your cherished “moonbats.”.
Ian I love it how so many of you lefties gloat over FUTURE stuff.
You know, stuff that HASN’T HAPPENED (or at least not yet).
You know – like the inevitable Kerry triumph of 2004; the 10,000 (non-)dead of Katrina; Rove being frogmarched; the Haditha (non-)massacre and (non-)coverup; America’s (non-)defeat in Iraq…
Tell you what – if you ever get anything real to gloat about, something that has happened – I will be sure to send a good thought your way.
LOL! The Republicans are making much more of a Hillary Presidential run than are the Democrats. She is not going to be the nominee, that much was clear quite some time ago.
Calarato, try to be a little more understanding of Ian S’s inherent psychological problem, will you? He HAS to look to the future and beg for respect on that platform because if he tries to focus on today or the recent past, he has nothing; not one thing of merit to append or declare. Right, he can state “We killed the FMA. Rove is a crook. Bush lied.” But they’re slogans in search of a missing parade.
He has to look to the future… the problem is, the political allies he’s counting on to deliver that future eden have neither the skills nor the vision nor the talent to deliver it. Ian S’s political utopia was a dream in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 (remember ‘Grassroots for Gore’? LOL), 2004 and now in 2006 or 2008.
Ian S is kind of like the kid who repeatedly wets his finger, sticks it in the socket and tries to create light by posing as the lightbulb. “If I just wish it hard enough, it’ll come true!”
Lots of pain; little enlightenment. The sad lot of the GayLeft.
Please, let him have his dreams… they are no threat to the Republic.
Ian and Gryph, I prety much agree that Hillary won’t be the nominee in ’08 — and it is that while, in many ways, she has her husband’s political skills, she lakes his smooth persona. One of the points of this post.
To claim the “Vote the Bastards Out”-disaffected Reagan Democrats and “anti-incumbent-including-mine” moderate Republicans as supporters of a “new” Democratic grassroots is spurious. The supporters of Reagan and the 1994 Gingrich Republican revolution are aghast and disgusted with the one-note Social-Conservatives and their profligate spending-habits. The Republican congressman from our district is in trouble primarily since everyone is just tired of looking at him; not because his opponent’s a stronger candidate. His opponent is a political no-entity nominated by the Party apparatus. But real problem is that Congressman Smith is viewed as out-of-touch and a one-trick anti-abortion pony. He’s been in Congress for over 25-years; has never had a job in the real world; private or public sector…he ran for Congress right out of graduate school…and everyone here’s just tired of him. The Party won’t replace him as a candidate since they’ll lose a top-ten-Senority-ranked player…and that’s what he is…a player. He doesn’t even bring money back for the district since he’s senior-enough to raise his money from the K-Street Boys and the RNC.
The Republican are going to lose seats in 2006…and in 2008; but don’t claim is any nationwide revolution…it’s more of a revulsion. And it’s in that “Vote-Against” atmosphere that I project St. Hillarybeast as the Democratic candidate for 2008…and possibly as the winner in 2008.
Get a clue: you’re going to lose Senate seats in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Montana to a new breed of Dem that the grassroots is supporting.
Of course, the irony of this situation is that the reason the grassroots is even coming close to supporting them is because these candidates are the exact opposite of the Democratic “base” — pro-life, pro-religion, pro-military, and pro-American.
Even in victory, the hatemongering leftists will be defeated. The Democratic Party merely plays on their irrational hatred of Republicans to milk them dry of cash.
I received a bumper sticker in the mail from the HRC (or was it some other leftwing group) that said “Run, Hillary, Run!”
I put it on the front bumper of my car.
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter, GREAT one!
So, now it’s more like a warning than a slogan-bumper sticker. I gotta get me one… I gotta.
Bush never looked presidential either against Kerry and yet he won. From my perspective, Hillary does look presidential and can win the presidency in 08. Thats the reason why the GOP is contantly attacking her. If you notice. They do not attack anyone else, only Hillary. Thats sounds to me a bit of fear.