Hillary revisited

I happened to see Hillary Clinton giving a speech to the Democratic National Committee Friday evening on C-SPAN. Because I almost never watch tv, this was the first time (other than a couple of interviews) that I had seen her speak at any length in several years, perhaps since her 2000 Senate campaign. My recent image of her was that she was a star, a kind of royalty, moving effortlessly toward her probable coronation by the Democrats. I had also picked up the sense that she had fine-tuned her grating persona and had become less shrill and more ordinary and “human,” especially because of six years’ experience as an elected official, which one would think would wear off the rough edges.

But seeing her give an entire speech I realized that her personality has not changed at all. She is harsh, angry-sounding, and angry-looking, her eyes fixed in a hostile stare as she speaks. Every time she raises her voice it turns into an unpleasant shout, and you feel you’re watching some left-wing demonstration of America-haters. And the harsh automaton I’ve just described is the “genuine” part of her personality, in which the “real” Hillary expresses her “natural” self. When she tries to seem “ordinary,” lowers her voice, purses her lips, smiles, she’s entirely fake. She has the quality of an alien creature in a science fiction movie who tries to pretend to be human, but can’t carry it off.

I judge candidates’ presidential prospects not by polls and other pragmatic indices, but by intuition, by whom I can “see” as a president. I cannot “see” Hillary Clinton as president, or, for that matter, even as the Democratic nominee. I think that when people, even many Democrats, see Hillary Clinton standing at a podium and saying, “I am running for president,” their feeling will be the same as mine—instinctive alarm.

Whom does that leave? I’ve read that the media currently considers Hillary, Barak Obama, and John Edwards as the front rank among the Democratic candidates. But Edwards with his weird combination of pretty boy persona and left-wing demagogy is a joke. That leaves Obama. But does Obama have the political substance, beyond his personal appeal, to mount a credible campaign? I don’t know. But here is my thought at the moment, which is too provisional and premature to call a prediction: Obama will win the Democratic nomination, but, because of his left-wing orientation and lack of substance, will lose in the general election to a very flawed but more substantive and mature Republican.

- end of initial entry -

Robert B. writes:

“Obama will win the Democratic nomination, but, because of his left-wing orientation and lack of substance, will lose in the general election to a very flawed but more substantive and mature Republican. “

Lord, let us pray so. Although at this juncture, I cannot see how it will matter. The door was left open for so long now, the only way out of Western civilization’s current dilemmas may be war- internecine civil war with the various players stacked up against what is left of traditional America and Europe.

David B. writes:

I just reflected on the last 5 times there was an open (non-incumbent) situation regarding the Democratic Presidential Nomination. These were 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, and 2004. The winners; Mondale, Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, were basically the establishment choice. Or, the candidate with the most momentum going in. That does seem to be Hillary at this stage.

You will remember that John Kerry was leading a lackluster field at this time in 2003, but Democrats were very unenthusiastic about him. Howard Dean caught on, and for several months was looked upon as the likely nominee. Kerry’s organization carried him to a win in Iowa, and Dean imploded.

I don’t think there is that much enthusiasm for Hillary. Even liberals don’t really want to go back to the Clinton years. Obama may be peaking to early, and could fall as flat as Dean did in 2004. Hillary could muddle through and win the nomination as Kerry did last time. She and Obama show how far this country has sunk. Hillary is supported in order to be the “first female President.” Obama is supposed to be the “first African-American President.” Neither has anything else to recommend them.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 03, 2007 03:20 PM | Send