Today on Blogcritics
Home » Hillary’s Baffling Appeal

Hillary’s Baffling Appeal

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Let’s face it. Hillary Clinton has something. Otherwise, why would she be leading Mega-Charisma Barack Obama by 15 points?

What is it about her that appeals to some voters? Rather weird, isn't it, since almost half of US voters say they'll NEVER vote for her-46%, to be precise-in a Zogby poll in March. That's a whole lot of voters who can't stand her, for reasons we'll get to a little later.

I must confess, I used to be against Hillary myself, because she won’t apologize for her vote giving Bush the power to go to war in Iraq if diplomacy failed. When she said, if she knew then what she knows now, I figured this was total BS, because plenty of Democrats knew back then that Bush was full of crap about WMD and voted against the resolution.

Also, I used to be an Obama man. Down the line. He bowled me over. His rhetoric, his manner, his self-deprecation, his smile, his intelligence, his writing: I thought he had it all.

Until I saw him on stage next to Hillary.

Then something happened.

The most bizarre thing.

Hillary looked like the leader. Not Barack. In fact, when I saw her smack dab between Barack and John Edwards-where they prefer to put her these days-she not only looked like the leader, but also, they looked like her two able assistants.

Why does she look like the leader?

It’s her manner. She has it all together. She gives pithy, forceful answers. She never waffles, or goes off on a tangent, or ums or ahs, which Edwards and Obama frequently do.

She looks like the strongest personality among all the candidates. She’s the one the others look up to. She’s the one presiding over them. Like a real President. She looks the most Presidential.

And boy, does she have the one-liners.

When she was asked during the YouTube Dem Prez debate how she feels about being in a long line of 28 years of Clintons and Bushes, she turned it around.

She said: “I agree. I think it was a mistake that George Bush was elected.” And the crowd roared.

Then she said: “In fact, I thought somebody else was elected.” And the crowd roared.

And then: “I’m proud of my husband’s record.” And the crowd roared.

And finally: “I think anyone on this stage would be a better President than George Bush, or any of the Republican candidates.” And the crowd started roaring before she even finished her sentence.

She turned a negative into four crowd-roaring positives. Now that’s real sharp and classy.

I have my own theory about this. Yes, I know she’s a wonk, and is therefore very well prepared, and she has the most experience any candidate in history has ever had, since she's spent 8 years in the White House already. But I think it comes down to this: as smart as John Edwards and Barack Obama are, she’s smarter.

As for those who don’t like her- because she’s a woman, because she stood by her philandering husband, because she won’t apologize for her vote giving Bush war power if diplomacy failed, because she never seems sincere, because she’s all calculation, well, I could rebut all of your misgivings:

. If you’re worried because she’s a woman, get over it. Think Maggie Thatcher, Golda Meir and Angela Merkel, and shut the heck up.

.  If you think she should’ve left Bill who lied to her about Monica, that’s none of your business. The heart has its reasons, and ambition does too. So what? In the end, this is a family affair between her and Bill, so lay off.

. Let me tell you why she won’t apologize for her vote to give Bush the power to go to war against Saddam. This is a matter of national security. If she apologizes about a matter of national security, she’ll come off like a flip-flopping John Kerry. She can apologize for anything else, but not on a matter of national security. National security is something on which the Republicans habitually beat the Democrats. It would be bad politics for Hillary to apologize. It would satisfy her left wing, but make her look weak. By NOT apologizing, she looks like a stronger Commander-in-Chief.

. Here’s the charge aimed at her very nature: she never seems sincere, she’s too calculating. Why does she hold herself in like she does? Listen, because she’s a woman, she cannot let her hair down. If she became sincere and went all Oprah Winfrey on us, she wouldn’t look like a Commander-in-Chief. She has to come off measured. If you think that makes her appear insincere and calculating, get over it. She’s doing what she has to do to win. Do you want a thrice-married creep like Giuliani to win? Do you need a craven bastard like him as your President, a man whose second wife first heard he was going to divorce her when he announced it on TV? Get real.

Hillary Clinton deserves to be president. She’s earned it. She knows what she’s doing. Her record as a Senator for New York is absolutely outstanding. She has often reached across the aisle in the Senate. Having spent eight years in the White House already, she’s the best-prepared President we’ll ever get. She knows how to lead. I’d sleep real good knowing she’s at the helm. I’m most comfortable with our country in her hands than in anyone else’s.

And it will be real nice to have a woman ordering the men of the world around for a change.

So there, you Hillary-haters. You better start getting used to it. Hillary Clinton is going to be your next President.

Powered by

About Adam Ash

  • http://unitedagainsthillary.wordpress.com Y

    We shall see if Democrats still want her after her bizarre defense of lobbyists (and her habit of taking their money). More on that

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The key thing to watch is whether those 46% ‘very negative’ ratings change during the campaign. Outside New York City, the state of New York is mostly conservative and Republican. Yet she was reelected overwhelmingly statewide.

    The citizens of NY State have learned to respect her if not to love her. I think that will happen with many voters in a national campaign too. The question is how many.

    Just as Giuliani’s poll ratings are likely to go down the more people hear him speak and hear about his abrasive, divisive personality, Sen. Clinton’s ratings may go up as people realize she’s smart and talented and not half as scary as they had convinced themselves she was.

    VP Obama and Sec. of HHS Edwards…not bad consolation prizes.

  • Alec

    RE: must confess, I used to be against Hillary myself, because she won’t apologize for her vote giving Bush the power to go to war in Iraq if diplomacy failed.

    A very good and interesting post. Let me add a couple of things. I respect her for this since here she refuses to make a simplistic mea culpa to the infantile pacifist wing of the Democratic Party, that loves to indulge itself with gestures and with theater. I guess these people have a desperate need to see Hillary renew her anti-war bona fides, so that she can be welcomed back into the loving arms of those who somehow always knew that the war in Iraq was a mistake. But no matter how you slice it, an apology is utterly irrelevant to the what we do going forward.

    From a political viewpoint, should Hillary become president, she will have to deal with the military, and so again it would be pointless to wear pacifist sackcloth for the sake of the knee-jerk anti-war crowd.

    I also agree about “standing by her man.” It’s funny that the wife of Vitter once claimed that she would go all medieval on his ass if he pulled a Monica, but once it came out that he was catting around in brothels, she magically became a forgiving Christian wife. Doesn’t she owe Hillary an apology?

    RE: Having spent eight years in the White House already, she’s the best-prepared President we’ll ever get. She knows how to lead.

    On the other hand, I have some doubts about this. Just sitting in the White House no more makes Hillary well-qualified to be president than it would qualify Chelsea to be commander-in-chief just because she was First Daughter for eight years. It also seems to me that Dubya’s supporters tried to bamboozle the public with a version of this: “yeah, he’s qualified to be president because he sat at his daddy’s knee and absorbed statesmanship.” Nonsense.

    Hillary does not display any of the positive instincts of her husband, but she has obviously satisfied her constituents during her term as a senator. Whether she can handle to duties of president remains to be seen, but she certainly is no less qualified than anyone else, in either party, currently in the race.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Adam’s post and Alec’s comment are probably the most measured and honest assessments of Hillary’s presidential prospects as I have seen anywhere. Thanks, guys.

    Now let the mudslinging begin… >:-(

  • Baronius

    “By NOT apologizing, she looks like a stronger Commander-in-Chief.”

    Interesting analysis.

  • Iron Duke

    You’re not considering the context. Put her between Obamaand Edwards and she certainly looks pretty presidential, but who wouldn’t? Let’s see her hold a one-on-one debate with Bill Richardson and see how she comes off. Or do this instead. Take a picture of her and put it between pictures of Romney and Giuliani and give your objective opinion of how presidential she looks then.

  • Lumpy

    I wonder what it’s like to live the Adam Ash Experience ™.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Lumpy for President!!!!!

  • http://LesPaulisanexcellentguitarplayerwithanadmirablegraspofgoodjazz. bliffle

    I disagree about her smartness. IMO she thought, as many people did, that Bushes Iraq Invasion would be over quickly and would be hugely popular. Boy were they wrong! She didn’t want to be on the wrong side of that popular war. IMO that is why most politicians backed the AAUMF, as well as the occasional BC blogger.

    She didn’t even read the NIE that purported to justify the invasion. It wasn’t necessary: she made her vote based on political expediency and advantage. Not based, incidentally, on matters of National Security.

    She deserves to be ripped from end to end for that cynical political decision. Made without consideration of National Security.

  • Arch Conservative

    Hillary will most certainly win the Democratic nomination and then recieve a bitch slap at the hand of Mitt Romney the likes of which this nation has not seen since Reagan Mondale.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Arch, do they give you guys at the annual Rebopublican rallies the same drugs they give out at Ron Paul rallies ore is it a different cocktail?

    The one sure way to lose to Hillary is to nominate an empty shirt prettyboy like Romney. You know, they do run candidate comparison polls. None of them show Romney beating Hillary.

    Dave

  • Dr Dreadful

    Dave, this is the fellow who loudly predicted to anyone on BC who would listen that the Republicans were comfortably going to hold onto both Houses of Congress last November.

    The only reason he’s supporting Romney is because he doesn’t like any of the other viable Repubs who’ve declared so far. That may change if and when Fred Thompson finally decides to take his thumb out of his ass.

    Romney is, for now, the Messiah simply because he’s not Rudy “Kill All the Babies” Giuliani or John “Senile Dementia” McCain. It’s a measure of how desperately lacking in good candidates conservatives like Arch are.

  • Tax Analyst

    Agree for the most part with Alec’s assessment. To those who think Hillary “too calculating” I would ask them to consider if that is such a bad trait in a Chief Executive. If it were merely used in gaining office, perhaps you could make a case that it is, but wouldn’t you prefer someone who “calculates”, i.e., considers the facts and conditions, before making important decisions like, oh…say, invading sovereign nations to name one thing?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I don’t see Arch converting to Thompson. Thompson’s too religiously neutral, and he’s got a mixed record (in other words he’s not a religious nutcase) on abortion.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    “Dave, this is the fellow who loudly predicted to anyone on BC who would listen that the Republicans were comfortably going to hold onto both Houses of Congress last November.”

    I never said that dreadful so go fuck yourself.

    Romney is far from a stuffed shirt.

    He’s a force to be reckoned with and you doubting motherfuckers will be made to realzie it in the not too distant future.

  • Dr Dreadful

    “Dave, this is the fellow who loudly predicted to anyone on BC who would listen that the Republicans were comfortably going to hold onto both Houses of Congress last November.”

    I never said that dreadful so go fuck yourself.

    Ahem

    Ahem ahem

    How’s it smell down there?

  • zingzing

    oh archie… how could you forget? i constantly remind you of your shitty predictions whenever you start making them… then again, if you don’t remember what you so loudly shouted last fall, it’s no wonder you forget my reminders.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Romney is far from a stuffed shirt.

    Actually, I said he was an empty shirt…

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Since when is saying squeak by which is what I said the same thing as saying the GOP will comfortably retain control dumbass?

    And the only empty shirt in the race is Obama.

    The only way that evil cunt will ever be president is if they start racking up the body count again and rigging the election.

  • Alec

    DD – RE: Adam’s post and Alec’s comment are probably the most measured and honest assessments of Hillary’s presidential prospects as I have seen anywhere. Thanks, guys.

    Thank you for the kind words.

    Iron Duke – RE: Take a picture of her and put it between pictures of Romney and Giuliani and give your objective opinion of how presidential she looks then.

    To amplify Dave Nalle’s comparison, Romney is little more than an empty suit. He has done more than simply flip-flop; his recent remarks that his previous pro-choice stance was a mistake essentially says that he regrets that the people of Massachusetts elected him governor. While this may seal the deal with the GOP fundamentalist base, it does not give any other voters much reason to see him as a viable candidate.

    Also, his most recent ridiculous rationalization as to why none of his five sons ever served in the military, that they’re showing their support for the country by “helping me get elected” is just about the stupidest remark that I have ever heard come out of a politician’s mouth.

    Hillary and Rudy may be headed for the showdown with each other that they abandoned when Rudy had to drop his senatorial campaign. But while he and the other Republicans try hard to trumpet their experience and their foreign policy stones, the bottom line is that right now all of the GOP presidential candidates are seriously damaging themselves by accepting Bush’s mindless Iraq policy as a core Republican platform. Also, so far, no former mayor of New York city, whether Republican or Democrat, has ever become a succesful presidential candidate.

    Rudy is further handicapped by his abyssmal track record in picking people like Bernie Kerik for positions of responsibility. In some ways, Rudy is a formidable opponent for Hillary or for any other Democratic Party candidate, but like Rory Sabbatini, any Republican should be very careful before they declare any Democrat “more beatable than ever.”

  • Dr Dreadful

    #19: Arch, that’s what you said in one of the posts I linked to.

    You were way more confident in the other one: you thought that the Dems would maybe pick up one or two seats… that sounds to me like a prediction of the Repubs comfortably holding on.

    And that was just the two comments of your that I had time to look for.

    As zing2 says, if you’re going to make rash promises to come back after elections to crow at those who disagree with your predictions, and forget that all your comments are not only preserved for posterity on the threads but also linked to from the leaderboard, then maybe you’re the one who’s a… dumbass.

    3x-: !

  • http://LesPaulisanexcellentguitarplayerwithanadmirablegraspofgoodjazz. bliffle

    Taxanalyst sez: “…wouldn’t you prefer someone who “calculates”, i.e., considers the facts and conditions, …”

    Of course. It’s much better than a faith-based guess. But ilarys calculation dealt with her electability, not with the nations welfare.

    If calculation were an important consideration then Carl Rove should be president, since freed of the burden of getting Bush elected, and with his attention turned firmly toward the national interest, we’d have OBL in prison and the Iraq problem solved. As it is he wasted his talents on the unimportant task of getting Bush elected.

  • http://www.thechurchofanswers.com Heloise

    Sure Hillary is great at standing up to the Right. She freakin had to because the GOP was trying to impeach her Bill. I wonder why? She has had experience all right standing up to those who were trying to pull them out the damn White House.

    She’s qualified yes. Her words: “INEVITABLE.” That is how confident that B is. I don’t care because if you folks elect her we will get what we deserve “nuclear war.” Hillary will push the button if she gets into office.

    What’s she got to lose? She will be a continuation of Bush and Bill. That’s why she will win, more of the same for another election. It will be the same WILD WILD WEST she and Bill came from in their past lives: Wild Bill Hickock and Calamity Jane

    That’s who we are about to put back in the WH! Good ole hard-drinking Calamity.

    Heloise

  • Baronius

    There’s no reason to get near Arch when he starts talking about Romney.

    As for Hillary’s White House experience, she’s always tried to have it both ways. She alternates between Rodham and Clinton. She’s proud of her husband’s policies without mentioning any of them. She’s an expert on health care, but we’re not supposed to remember 1993. I don’t see her shell game playing well in the general election.

  • http://culturesalad.blogspot.com Ray Ellis

    I love it when Arch enters into the fray. He’s quite amusing. And he makes me believe that somewhere, just beyond the darkest edge of the universe as we know it, that maybe, just maybe, Bizarro World, cubed planet that it is, actually exists, and that all rules of physics are meaningless.

    Well done, sir. Well done.

  • Dr Dreadful

    If Hillary were to win, and then win a second term (what was that scream? …Arch?), that means by 2017 the Bush/Clinton dynasties would have squatted in the Casa Blanca for a grand total of 28 years (36 if you count Bush the Elder’s stint as VP).

    So would Chelsea or the W twins be old enough to take a tilt at it by then?

    :-)

  • http://culturesalad.blogspot.com Ray Ellis

    Ya know, Dr. D– if you squint your eyes just right, you can see a sort of young Eleanor Roosevelt in Chelsea.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Oh, right – ’cause that idea would make Arch feel a whole lot better…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    you should just feed him a few bottles of ipecac, it would probably be easier on him

    just a Thought…

    Excelsior?

  • Baronius

    Dread, you forgot Jeb’s turn. He gets the presidency between Hillary and Chelsea.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Damn, I was trying not to think about Jeb. I just realized I also forgot Reggie Bush. He’s looking very presidential these days. Obama eat your heart out.

  • Iron Duke

    Don’t you think it’s time we got some of the Roosevelts and Taft’s back into the White House? They are still around and still in politics, though on a smaller scale.

  • STM

    Does anyone think the terrywrists will stop buggerising around if you get Obama as a president. Isn’t he a muslim?

    That’s something to think about. If you elect a muslim as president of the US, they’ll be scratching their heads for decades.

  • Clavos

    Actually, no, Stan.

    He claims Christianity as a religion, but he talks like a Secular Progressive (which, come to think of it, is the new American Puritanism).

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    i think there’s only one good way to really fuck with their heads…something unprecedented…something to show just how much crazier we are than them…

    unanimously elect a dead person…and who better, as our zombie in chief, to strike Fear into the very marrow of all who dare oppose us…what one man has made whole continents pee themselves…

    in 2008….bring….back…..Dick!!!

    yep, i said it….haul Nixon out of the ground, get the houngan to stir the Loa…and turn the twisted dead bastard loose against Osama and friends…make Liddy his VP…

    that would scare the sheets offa them, imo

    Excelsior?

  • Clavos

    “i think there’s only one good way to really fuck with their heads…something unprecedented…something to show just how much crazier we are than them…”

    I think you’re onto something there, gonzo…

  • Dr Dreadful

    #33:

    “Terrywrists”?

    …Tennis players???

  • Clavos

    …or gym queens.

  • STM

    Teapots … work that one out boys.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “she has the most experience any candidate in history has ever had”

    Uh, no.

    Hillary was a First Lady for 8 years (not an elected, or officialm government position) and has been a Senator for a little over 6 years.

    George H. W. Bush, when he was elected in 1988, had been a Vice-President for 8 years, a Congressman for 4 years, head of the CIA for 2 years, US Ambassador to the UN for 3 years, Ambassador to Red China for 3 years, and head of the national Republican Party for 2 years.

    And he ended up being an unpopular one-term President who received only about 38% of the vote when he ran for re-election.

  • Baronius

    Bob Dole served about 70 years in the Senate.

  • Dr Dreadful

    I know what a “teapot” is, but it’s not very nice and I’m not telling. Bad Stan. Step up for a smack on your terry-covered wrist.

  • http://cummins01 Richard Cummings

    Hillary Clinton is not as smart as many thing. She flunked the D.C. bar exam, the easiest in the country. What she is is well-rehearsed. That is something quite different from smart. She screwed up health care, something far more serious than her refusal to appologize for her vote on the Iraq war. As for her performance as a senator, what has she done? No one can point to one major accomplishment.

  • Nancy

    I was hoping she’d have what all the males lack: a smidge of honesty & honor. Alas, she’s as bad, as opportunistic, as venal, as slick, as any of the men. Just another one of the boys on The Hill. In that sense, I guess she’s just as well (or badly) qualified as any of them. She certainly isn’t any lower, but …

    ‘…it fell so low in my esteem I heard it hit the ground….’

    Maybe that’s why I’ll have a hard time voting for her, even tho the GOP candidate is sure to be far more nauseating to me.