I've been posting a lot about the R side of the primaries, so I want to make a stab at some balance and talk about the D candidates.
Even though I think most Americans would say that they vote on the issues and not on personalities, history suggests otherwise. The personal touch is arguably the most important factor in national elections. We may disagree with a candidate on this or that issue, we may think they're a bit too liberal or conservative, but if they make us feel like it's morning in America, or if they can convince us that they feel our pain, or that they'd be a fun guy to pal around with on the ranch, we are more likely to vote for them.
Even Jimmy Carter, not the most riveting of personalities, came across as a kind of southern gentleman ... and it didn't hurt that he was running against Gerald Ford. Of course, when he came up against a bone fide movie star in the next election, he didn’t fare so well.
The question that the Dems have to answer is whether their candidates are, to borrow a phrase, likable enough. With Hillary Clinton, one has to admire how she continues to tackle the rather overwhelming obstacles that fate has put before her. The unpleasant history of her husband's infidelity, the constant attacks from the right from people who sincerely believe that she is the most manipulative and untrustworthy politician in history, the natural pressure and balancing act that any woman would face as the first front-runner for the presidency. She really hasn't done a bad job. She's shown humor (maybe a tad forced at times), emotion (ditto), and most of all, grace under fire, which I think speaks very well for the job she might do as President.
But do people find her personally compelling?
With Obama, I believe he is one of the best public speakers I have ever seen. He can be inspiring to listen to, in fact, he nearly always is, and I think that is important in a leader. But in the debates he can come off as measured, almost distant. I recently heard an interview on NPR where he sounded almost bored with the questions. If Obama comes off as arrogant or disconnected from voters, they may vote for a different kind of change.
Edwards is perhaps the most “likable” of the three; at least he’s plenty charming. And yet he lags behind in the polls. And maybe that's where the "likable = electable" equation breaks down. Regardless of how much you like or dislake Hillary Clinton, she is just a bigger political star than Edwards. And that has to do with her history, her connections, and her ideas. Obama, of course, has been a star since he came on the national stage.
One thing I am interested in is how the, uh, several people reading this blog see Obama. I have a pretty good notion of how people view Clinton. But what about Obama? Any of us watching these primaries have seen him speak or debate by now. How does he come across to you? Politics aside, is he likable enough?
As far as predictions for Nevada and the GOP S. Carolina race, I think my winning streak is about to end. But I'll take a stab at it.
Nevada Dems: Clinton, Obama, Edwards
Nevada R’s: Romney, McCain, uh…. Huckabee. Ron Paul will beat Giuli-who?-ani again.
S. Carolina R's: Huckabee, McCain, Thompson.
2 comments:
One measure of my disconnection from most Americans' lives is that since I don't watch TV, my impression of candidates comes almost entirely from what I read about them. So the "likeability" quotient rarely enters for me...although I must say that I cannot now, and could not then, comprehend how anyone could interpret W's demeanor as anything other than an obnoxious cocktail of smugness, arrogance, and defensiveness, topped with an extra-large swirl of inanity.
It is unfortunate, but true, that likeability obviously plays a big part in the election process. It is a shame that more thought does not go into the decisions we make at the polls. That is a point I believe we all would agree upon.
I find your question interesting. I have always felt that a party with Bill Clinton would be a blast. It wouldn’t change my political opinions the next morning but I am sure it would be fun. Likeability is a poor gauge of a candidate. I always thought Bill was a well spoken President. He always handled himself well even when it was obvious that he was being less than sincere. That never changed my opinion of his political ideas.
As for your question for the Dems.
Hillary – I never really warmed up to Hillary, she has never really comes off as sincere. She really doesn’t carry herself very well and there always seems to be a forced and cold approach to her presentation.
Obama – So far I find him very well spoken. He handles himself well and is very personable. I would say on the likeability scale, he wins hands down.
Interesting enough Hilary’s lack of personality is not what I do not like about the idea of her being president. If anything that might make her more qualified. In all fairness to Hillary, we have more experience with her. We’ve seen her under fire and had her respond to, shall we say for this argument, less than ideal situations. We haven’t had that experience with Obama yet, perhaps over time that will change.
Post a Comment