We all know Hillary Clinton's not the world's greatest speaker and her campaign wants you to believe that while she's the duller candidate, she's the more substantial, the better to "lead on day one". She wants you to think the difference between her and Barack is a rhetorical one and her attacks; the latest one accusing him of stealing someone else's words (an odd claim for a lady who uses the phrases "Fired Up, Ready to Go" and "Yes, We Can" in her stump speeches) are all designed to give this claim credence.
But the difference between Clinton and Obama is not a speech thing, it's management and organization. She didn't finance the campaign well. She had no plan past Feb. 5. Her inner circle is determined by loyalty over competence, ie: Patti Sollis Doyle. This has nothing to do with her inability to inspire, but rather her inability to lead. Considering that for both candidates, this campaign is the biggest executive experience they've ever had, I think its fair to judge them by the sort of campaign they've run. How do they react to challenges?
Accusing Obama of being a plagiarist during a conference call the day before a primary isn't just an act of desperation, it really goes to how the Clinton's act under fire. There's this really arrogant attitude the Clinton's have that only they can save the country and so doing underhanded things to get the presidency is justified. It's ironic that Obama supporters are called cultish when it's weeping Hillary who has the savior complex.
Furthermore, the attack follows a pattern. In primaries the Clinton's like to stage some wild loose attack the day before the contest. In New Hampshire it was Bill calling Obama "the biggest fairy tale" he's ever seen. In South Carolina it was Bill yelling at a reporter and yesterday it was the plagiarism attack. These attacks are always followed the day of the primary for an appeal to move on and not get caught up in bickering by the Clinton people. The point isn't to actually bring up an argument, since none of these attacks ever stick; it's to dominate the news cycle the day before, to put the Obama team on the defensive and maybe if their lucky rattle off a few wavering undecideds. Some people call this smart political strategy, but what voters are saying this year is that they view it for what it is; lying and doing anything to win.
For a brief moment before Super Tuesday, I think Hillary was her genuine self. She spoke on the issues and how this campaign represented a historic moment for this country. Then she started losing momentum and rather than sticking to her convictions, she shook up her staff, took their advice to playing dirty and now, I believe, is going to see that effort blow up in her face. Do you want a President who, in times of crisis, cedes her authority and principals to spinmeisters and political operatives? Haven't we had 8 years of that already? Do we want another leader who rewards loyalty over competence?
I would find it very hard to vote for Hillary were she the nominee. She's too beholden to experts, policy advisers and political strategists. This is why we get a new Hillary every week. There's nothing wrong with taking advice, or even borrowing a good line from a fellow candidate now and then, but I don't trust someone who can't manage their own campaign to manage the country.
Fortunately, we have a great candidate; a once in a generation one, really-- who more Americans have cast their vote for this year than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, who has run with the same theme and message he had when the polls were stacked against him, who has conducted himself with honor and integrity, whose campaign is funded by millions of small contributions and who doesn't just talk about change, but is making it happen; right before our eyes.
You can accuse me of drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, but it sure beats swallowing the bile the Clinton's are trying to shove down our throats.
Labels: politics
