I have been a fan of Hillary Clinton for some time; as I mentioned earlier, I stayed registered in NY as a student for the 2000 election so I could cast my vote for her in the Senate race. In the past several months, I have also admired her evolution as an orator, rising quite a bit above the lamentable “Shrillary” jeers. I think that female leaders who seek a role model will find a lot to learn from her public speaking style.
That said, Hillary herself has a strange messaging problem that she needs to find a way to stop: her apparent relish for campaigning, itself.
Here I’m not referring to the perceived tweaks to the campaign messaging; being able to iterate a message until it hits the right note is a critical skill for any politician (although, as with any form of magic, it’s best done out of sight). I’m talking about what appears to be her color commentary — what, in sports, might be considered “trash talking.”
Yesterday, in Texas, Clinton commented, “From my perspective this is the exciting part of the campaign, where you really get down to saying OK what are the differences, how do we draw these distinctions and what are the respective records of each of us running.” Kicking off the Iowa campaign in December, she declared, “Well, now the fun part starts.”
Clearly, Clinton has staked her claim not just on “experience” as a leader, but very specifically on experience in dealing with the rough-and-tumble of politics. There’s a subtle but important difference between the two, and it’s unclear to me whether American voters really want someone who not only says that she’ll fight hard, but implies that she’ll fight dirty — and like it. There’s a fiction that politicians have to maintain, that the campaigning and fund-raising and all of that is the very lamentable means to the nobler ends of governance. They have to maintain this even they’re adrenaline-junkie, baby-kissing congenital glad-handers.
By this point in the campaign now, Clinton has demonstrated that she’s tough and has risen (I hope) above feminine stereotypes. Maybe she felt that it was important to convey how strongly she can fight. But drop the “fun part” stuff and the same message shines through, without the gleeful overtones. The problem is the double standard we hold — not for women, but for politicians. If our leaders fight dirty, I think we still want them to feel dirty about it. The danger Clinton courts with her message is that, as McCain might put it, she likes it.
Hillary is about the most non-feminist figure I can think of. She keeps hanging on the coat tails of her former president husband, touting the “successess” of his presidency as her own. Now he has been doing some campaigning for her with lack-luster results. We’ll all be better off with her and her husband’s brand of politicing sail off into the sunset. It’s time for a new way of doing things, as in the grassroots campaign of Obama, putting little reliance on PAC’s. PAC’s are the major culprit of the present lack of activity in Washington today. One special interest is pitted against the other. Decisions being made by who can buy more influence than the other.
It doesn’t matter if its a Bush or a Clinton taking special interest money, the result is the corruption seen in Washington. It makes the public disinterested in the political process; what difference can my vote make when it’s all about the power money buys.