HRC's Slate problem.
Today, Slate's Jacob Weisberg opens up and tells us all why Hillary Clinton isn't electable in 2008. Weisberg's fresh angle on this now-familiar theme is that Hillary's unelectability doesn't stem from any of the reasons most of us mere mortals think it does. It's not, for instance, that she's too far left (that argument, Weisberg explains, is "facile"). It's not that she's too polarizing either; so long as we unknowing liberals follow her like sheep, who cares how worked up the Republicans get? It's not that old devil, guilt-by-association-with-Bill (the culture loves those "naughty celebrities" you see). And, finally, it's not that she's a woman. America is at least as liberated as England on that score.
So what's holding Hillary back? What is going to keep her in the Senate? Well, there's no delicate way to put this, so here's Weisberg in the raw:
But she still lacks a key quality that a politician can't achieve through hard work: likability. As hard as she tries, Hillary has little facility for connecting with ordinary folk, for making them feel that she understands, identifies, and is at some level one of them. You may admire and respect her. But it's hard not to find Hillary a bit inhuman. Whatever she may be like in private, her public persona is calculating, clenched, relentless—and a little robotic.
There you have it, Hillary's great big problem, in a nutshell. I just don't like her says Weisberg, channelling the folk. And if we nominate her, make no mistake that Weisberg is going to spend a whole year elaborating on the point.
As a digression, two things are sad here. The first is that Weisberg is only the third most obnoxious bigfooter at Slate, running an easy third behind both Mickey Kaus and Chris Suellentrop on that score (and even the occassionally esteemable William Saletan gives him a run for his money for sheer confidence in his inate pundit ability to see into the dimbulb voter mind). The second thing that's sad to me is that Slate is widely identified as "neoliberal", almost like the pop-culture companion to the Washington Monthly. So every time I read it I can't help wondering how such a great man as Charles Peters could have mentored, even indirectly, this sort of tripe...
Anyway, Hillary is now taking her place in a long tradition of Big Dems that Weisberg and his pals couldn't fucking stand:
[I]n American elections, affection matters. Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 with candidates Main Street regarded as elitist and aloof, to a candidate voters related to personally. Hillary isn't as obnoxious as Gore or as off-putting as Kerry. But she's got the same damn problem, and it can't be fixed.
I should really leave this be. But I can't. So I headed over to Polling Report and pulled out my favourite trusty counterintuitive graph:
"Now that the campaign is over, how satisfied were you with the choice of presidential candidates? Would you say that you were very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied?"
Very Fairly Not Very Not At All Unsure
11/04 33 33 16 16 2
11/00 24 44 18 9 5
11/96 18 33 24 22 3
11/92 24 37 21 16 2
11/88 26 36 20 17 1
Hmm, now if you weren't a clairvoyant with his finger on the pulse of America and a birds-eye view into the voters' infantile minds like a columnist at Slate, you might gather that the last two elections found comparatively high levels of satisfaction (and in Kerry's case, outright enthusiasm) with the choice of candidates out there on Main Street. Granted, that could all be Bush enthusiasts. Except that it's not. A look at the exit polls show that about 85% of Gore voters were "excited" or "optimistic" about him; and fully 90% of Kerry voters told exit pollsters last year that they had a favourable opinion of him. Even beyond the disconnect between voters' and pundits' views of the candidates, Weisberg's assertion that "affection matters" is historically questionable. Who were the most overtly "loved" Democratic candidates of the past half century? Stevenson, the Kennedys, McGovern, Gary Hart maybe, Bill Clinton (though not really until after he won), and recently Howard Dean might qualify. But these pols have a pretty mixed track record in terms of putting together an electoral majoritity.
Nevertheless, Weisberg is certainly right about one thing. HRC does have a problem and, no, it probably can't be fixed. Welcome to the club, Hil and have a cigar. You've been heathered.
So what's holding Hillary back? What is going to keep her in the Senate? Well, there's no delicate way to put this, so here's Weisberg in the raw:
But she still lacks a key quality that a politician can't achieve through hard work: likability. As hard as she tries, Hillary has little facility for connecting with ordinary folk, for making them feel that she understands, identifies, and is at some level one of them. You may admire and respect her. But it's hard not to find Hillary a bit inhuman. Whatever she may be like in private, her public persona is calculating, clenched, relentless—and a little robotic.
There you have it, Hillary's great big problem, in a nutshell. I just don't like her says Weisberg, channelling the folk. And if we nominate her, make no mistake that Weisberg is going to spend a whole year elaborating on the point.
As a digression, two things are sad here. The first is that Weisberg is only the third most obnoxious bigfooter at Slate, running an easy third behind both Mickey Kaus and Chris Suellentrop on that score (and even the occassionally esteemable William Saletan gives him a run for his money for sheer confidence in his inate pundit ability to see into the dimbulb voter mind). The second thing that's sad to me is that Slate is widely identified as "neoliberal", almost like the pop-culture companion to the Washington Monthly. So every time I read it I can't help wondering how such a great man as Charles Peters could have mentored, even indirectly, this sort of tripe...
Anyway, Hillary is now taking her place in a long tradition of Big Dems that Weisberg and his pals couldn't fucking stand:
[I]n American elections, affection matters. Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 with candidates Main Street regarded as elitist and aloof, to a candidate voters related to personally. Hillary isn't as obnoxious as Gore or as off-putting as Kerry. But she's got the same damn problem, and it can't be fixed.
I should really leave this be. But I can't. So I headed over to Polling Report and pulled out my favourite trusty counterintuitive graph:
"Now that the campaign is over, how satisfied were you with the choice of presidential candidates? Would you say that you were very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied?"
Very Fairly Not Very Not At All Unsure
11/04 33 33 16 16 2
11/00 24 44 18 9 5
11/96 18 33 24 22 3
11/92 24 37 21 16 2
11/88 26 36 20 17 1
Hmm, now if you weren't a clairvoyant with his finger on the pulse of America and a birds-eye view into the voters' infantile minds like a columnist at Slate, you might gather that the last two elections found comparatively high levels of satisfaction (and in Kerry's case, outright enthusiasm) with the choice of candidates out there on Main Street. Granted, that could all be Bush enthusiasts. Except that it's not. A look at the exit polls show that about 85% of Gore voters were "excited" or "optimistic" about him; and fully 90% of Kerry voters told exit pollsters last year that they had a favourable opinion of him. Even beyond the disconnect between voters' and pundits' views of the candidates, Weisberg's assertion that "affection matters" is historically questionable. Who were the most overtly "loved" Democratic candidates of the past half century? Stevenson, the Kennedys, McGovern, Gary Hart maybe, Bill Clinton (though not really until after he won), and recently Howard Dean might qualify. But these pols have a pretty mixed track record in terms of putting together an electoral majoritity.
Nevertheless, Weisberg is certainly right about one thing. HRC does have a problem and, no, it probably can't be fixed. Welcome to the club, Hil and have a cigar. You've been heathered.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home