Were it not for the debates in the 2004 presidential election, President Bush may well have been re-elected by a popular vote margin similar to that his father enjoyed when first elected to the White House as Ronald Reagan’s successor in 1988. Coming out of the GOP convention, he constantly led in the polls, often by considerable margins. Those on the left were already discounting John Kerry’s chances — and faulting his campaign.
But, the first debate that fall changed everything. Taller than his opponent, Kerry with “his chiseled face” looked presidential. The president almost seemed to be swallowed up by his podium. Not only that. He seemed to have taken that debate, the one that had the largest audience, for granted.
Largely based on his presence, John Kerry reversed his slide in the polls and, in some, pulled even with the president.
Recalling that experience, I wonder at the number of pundits, notably Dick Morris, who see Hillary Clinton’s victory as inevitable* in next fall’s presidential election. The first ballot hasn’t been cast — and the former First Lady hasn’t even won her party’s nomination, yet some are already speculating on the composition of a second Clinton Administration.
Given her public persona — in contrast to that of her husband — it’s hard to imagine how a campaign, featuring debates (as have all presidential contest for the past thirty years) could improve her image. As I have written before (referencing Peggy Noonan), she often comes across as “an angry divorcée* addressing the PTA.” Angry divorcées aren’t very presidential.
Yes, having already begun to reassemble her husband’s top-notch political team, she can be expected to run a good campaign. Yet, even with these excellent strategists and operatives, Bill Clinton couldn’t muster a majority of the popular vote against the two worst GOP presidential campaigns since 1964. And he ran as the challenger when the economy was sour — and the incumbent when the economy was strong. Plus, he had what his wife lacks, charisma and a compelling public presence.
One thing which will help the eventual Republican nominee (presuming its one of the three leading candidates) next fall against his Democratic rival will be what Paul Mirengoff of Powerline yesterday called “The Stature Gap.” Simply put, the three leading GOP candidates have stronger records — and greater presence — than their Democratic counterparts.
Now, when measured head to head, Republicans run even with Democrats — which should be a troubling sign to Democrats given that polls shows that Americans would favor a Democratic Chief Executive to a Republican one (in that abstract, that is, when no names are mentioned). When the American people see the eventual GOP nominee next to his Democratic counterpart, they may well reconsider their preference for a Democrat.
As Paul noted, the three leading Republicans have all made substantial contributions in their respective fields. With presidential debates have transformed the landscape of U.S. presidential elections, it’s absurd to speculate about the outcome of the 2008 election without considering how these encounters could effect its outcome. (Not only that, much could happen in the next year which could change public perceptions of the political parties.)
Each of the three leading Republican candidates has a compelling personal story and a demonstrated ability to lead. Each comes across well on television and in other public fora. Those qualities should serve them well in the 2008 election and could possibly provide the winning edge against a less accomplished Democratic nominee, particularly if that nominee is Mrs. Clinton, whose harsh presence and flat voice, could turn off moderate voters who would otherwise be favorably disposed to a Democratic candidate.
*Over at Wizbang, Lorie Byrd reports on those pundits “who think a Hillary presidency is inevitable.”
“Largely based on his presence”? Where do you get these “facts”?
Oh, and please, please, please keep attacking Senator Clinton. Conservative attacks on her and her husband, after all, helped move public opinion against the witch hunt years ago. Deride and attack, por favor.
As the WSJ said:
All politicians change their minds about something at some point, but what’s troubling about Mrs. Clinton’s record on Iraq is that it tends to follow, rather than lead, public opinion.
She’s a follower, definitely NOT a leader. She’s just like BJ, she wets her finger, holds it up in the wind and heads that direction.
Does Hillary windsurf, by any chance?
One thing is certain: in Old Media coverage of the 2008 campaign, we will not hear the word “gravitas” used at all.
The only thing that sounds like more fun than a Shrillery/Rudy debate is watching Obama try to hold his own on foreign policy in a VP debate against McCain or Hunter. (Preferably Hunter.)
Windsurf? Does hanging ten on a broom count?
This is purely anecdotal, but I do recall from lib-left friends, and recall reading the sentiment over and over again in blogs including this one, that Kerry looked and sounded more presidential than Bush. I think it was a combination of style-over-substance, to which the emotion-driven left is susceptible, and also a certain amount of projection, the Bush-hating left wanted Kerry to be more presidential than Bush.
Maybe she’ll bake muffins for the first debate.
#9 – V, you nailed it again. That is all the libtards are about – “style over substance.” They are a product of the TV generation, after all.
Regards,
Peter H.
I agree with the general premise that appearance is a huge factor in presidential debates. Supposedly, people that watched 1960 debate on tv felt that Kennedy won and those that listened on radio said Nixon won. Steve Forbes was arguably the best conservative canidate in 1996, but he was just too goofy looking to win.
Every minute detail of how the debates are conducted is negotiated in advance in order to minimize this issue, anyhow. I can’t help but think about the snl skit with John Lovitz playing Dukakis and adjusting his height behind the podium.
I’m just not sure I’m buying this stature gap argument for 2008. A quick google search indicates the following:
Hillary – 5’6″
McCain – 5’7″
Giuliani – 5’9″
Romney – over 6′
Not able to find info on Gingrich, Tancredo, Brownback, Hunter.
Only 1 of the current top 3 candidates would provide a more visually commanding presence over hillary. Mccain is old and looks it. Giuliani is an impressive canidate, but he has a goofy mouth and has a bit of a lisp. Again, I just don’t believe this “stature gap” is as large as you think. I think the best thing the GOP could do is to nominate a solid conservative that has top notch public speaking skills. Seeing someone like Newt speak after 8 years of Bush struggling at the podium would be a huge relief for many. Clearly articulating the conservative ideas and being able to sell your position is going to be the most effective way to reclaim the voters that abandoned the party in 2006.
One additional interesting note:
Prior to the first primaries, Gingrich is attempting to get both parties to agree to a new approach to debates. A weekly discussion between the two nominees from labor day until the election. Actually talking about issues and ideas more indepth and getting away from the memorized sound bites. He seems to think that hillary would agree to such an arrangement.
Yet you worship a former movie actor as the greatest politician of all time.
A presidential candidate needs one thing above all else to get their positions believed and supported. That one thing is a personality. Hillary does not have one.
If Hillary — contrary to the nonstop accusations that she is “shrill”, a “witch”, and “Hitler” reincarnate — really does lack a personality, then y’all are going to have to think up some new nicknames for her.
#13 vaara
Quoting from a bumper sticker of the day:
“An actor for President. Why not? We’ve had a clown the last four years.”
#11 – I completely agree that the “style over substance” issue is a product of the tv generation (nevermind that I was born in that era)…but really, regardless of one’s political leanings, it would be nice to have a President who had something more than a passing command of the English language. I’m not asking for the “King’s English”, but can he/she not stumble and stutter through even basic phrases…please…I mean people are watching…jeez.
Viaagra, er vaara,
If you did ANY research, you would know that Reagan wrote all his speeches and was a REAL conservative, not a follower. Yes he was an actor to start with, but like Jimmy Stewart and Jonh Wayne he was a REAL American, not a coke snorting Hollyword actor.
Conservatives owe him alot, for these days respect and then following your beliefs seems to mean nothing.
GG
#13
Yet you worship a former movie actor as the greatest politician of all time.
Take a look at the number of votes he won by. Clearly there was substance. Or do you want me to believe the liberal candidates sucked that badly?
Further, that former actor beats the everloving hell out of that hillbilly (and that’s being rude to hillbillies) any day.
I never like reading postings like this, which discount Hillary’s ability to do well. Don’t forget 2000, when Hillary wasn’t expected to win as an “outsider/carpetbagger.” Her victory over Lazio was credited–to some degree–to the debates! Granted, Lazio got the blame for it (remember the silly attack that he “invaded her space?”), but it was more than Lazio’s stunt. Hillary took advantage of that incident by holding her own, keeping her cool, and connecting in some way to the audience. I’m not a Hillary fan, and am already exploring other countries to exile myself to should the unthinkable Clinton II happen. But don’t discount her in anyway, whether it be her debating, her flip flopping, her husband, or any of her other perceived weaknesses. If we discount her for anything, we will surely pay the price.
I thought that was Peggy Noonan’s job.
Vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaara, try again.
Reagan was not in Hollywood long enough to become a “star” in terms of the caliber of the current Governator of CA, but it seems that your side of the aisle is content on denigrating him for being an actor.
Does that mean that the Hollyweirdos in DC last month for the anti-American protest are just as clueless as you think Reagan was in his lifetime?
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
So, the reason Reagan was such a great statesman is that he was such a lousy actor?
#23
Are you blonde?
Not nearly as blonde as Peggy Noonan.
Not nearly as blonde as Peggy Noonan.
Ok. Did your father marry his sister?
I just got done reading the platform of a certain female presidential candidate. It includes the following agenda items:
– Reduce the number of students in classes and offer taxpayer-funded free tutoring for students that have difficulties keeping up
– Taxpayer-funded workshops for parents to teach them how to discipline their children (it takes a village, you know.)
– Increase taxes on the rich
– Tax corporations more heavily if they do not invest a certain share of their profits into higher wages and benefits for workers.
– Hold a national townhall meeting on how to increase worker salaries.
– Free contraception for teenagers and young women
– Raise the minimum wage
Now, my question for those on the left, are these the kind of mainstream Democratic agend items you support, and am I a wingnut for thinking they sound suspiciously like socialism?
#23 – So vaaaaaaaaaaaaaara, using your logic (such as it is), a bad actor means a good politician?
I guess in your mind, that makes Sean Penn look like Demosthenes.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Such statesmanlike wisdom! Such gravitas! Have you ever considered running for office?
Speaking of 2008, I have a bone to pick with Republicans. Why is Romney getting bashed for supposedly “flip-flopping” on abortion, by the same people who say it doesn’t matter that Giuliani is pro-choice. WTF? Romney gets bashed for coming around to the right position, while Rudy gets a pass for having the wrong one? Not that I’m all that impressed with Romney, but a double-standard is a double-standard.
I see what’s going on with the GOP. Giuliani is being put forth as the only one with a chance of beating Hillary, so principled conservatives are being told to shut up for the sake of the party keeping power. That strategy, putting power ahead of principle, didn’t work for the GOP in 2006, and I don’t think it will work in 2008.
So, you’re a Romney man then. But he’s such an effete Eastern coastal élitist… wouldn’t you prefer a more Heartlandish candidate instead? Such as, for example, Sam Brownback.
Now there’s a man who has a clear moral vision for America, and knows how to articulate it.
Brownback in ’08! Tell all your friends!!
Learn to read, vaara. I said that I wasn’t impressed with Romney.
V, sounds like vaaaaaaaaaaaaaara went to school with IgnorantAndNauseating in the short yellow bus as well. Both can’t read and debate worth squat.
Regards,
Peter H.
Pete, do you think it’s a congenital learning disability or brain damage brought on by bongwater consumption that makes it impossible for the left to argue intelligently?
My comment, for the record, was more anti-Giuliani than pro-Romney. Also, for the record, I dislike and/or despise every single presidential candidate who’s declared so far except for Duncan Hunter and he a.) has no chance and b.) I’d probably dislike him if I knew more.
V, the good thing about a liberal MSM is that with the GOP primaries, we can decide for ourselves who we want on the ticket without having our decisions colored and/or filtered through a biased media intent upon framing both the election and the candidates.
We already KNOW that the Drive-By Media will annoint their favorite in the Dhimmicrat Party and pass it on as “unbiased reporting.” But it is we the people (as per the Constitution) in the GOP who will decide our candidate.
Speaking of which – ever notice that in GOP primaries, you never hear voters complain about (a) wrong ballots (b) hanging chads (c) corrupt Diebold machines (d) “not every vote was counted” and (e) all of the above?
Libnuts are just like Islamoterrorists – they scream and riot when they feel like they are being slighted.
Regards,
Peter H.
And this is your idea of “debating”?
And this is your idea of “arguing intelligently”?
You people are so funny.
#36 – That’s the point, vaaaaaaaaaaaaaara. Our side of the aisle has a sense of humor. Libs are probably the most despondent, most humorless souls on the planet.
Prove me wrong.
Regards,
Peter H.