|
by BooMan
Depending on your age, you may know Pat Caddell as George McGovern's wunderkind pollster or you may know him from the 2004 election as a disgruntled and angry political commentator on MSNBC. Caddell basically invented the modern poll tested political campaign. He got his start doing a school project during the 1968 election in Jacksonville, Florida. Jacksonville was George Wallace country. Yet, as Caddell went around asking people about their political preferences he was shocked at how many people expressed support for Robert Kennedy. So, Caddell began drilling down to understand why people supported Wallace, and why they supported Kennedy. After all, Wallace and Kennedy had gone to war over the desegregation of the University of Alabama and they had opposing views on the Vietnam War. Joe Klein explains in his book Politics Lost: How American Democracy Was Trivialized by People Who Think You're Stupid.
The answers came in blunt, simple sentences: Which gets straight to the problem with so many Democratic nominees. Was Michael Dukakis a tough guy? Could you believe Bill Clinton? Which Al Gore was going to show up to which debate? Where did John Kerry stand on the war? As Terence Samuel notes, this is not the kind of image that we need in our next nominee.
Clinton's fumbles in the last Democratic debate -- on immigration and her seeming inability to give a straight answer -- threw into sharp relief the fact that the GOP nominee will have a fair amount of Democratic vulnerability to work with if she is the nominee. Hillary has worked hard to project an image of toughness, but she hasn't mastered it at all, the art of creating trust. She's polished. She's eloquent. She's sharp on the issues. She's qualified. But she isn't really all that tough and, more importantly, she isn't trustworthy. She doesn't project trustworthiness. Ironically, (considering prior gaffes) it's Joe Biden that projects toughness and straightforwardness. The rest of the field seems too prone to caution, afraid someone, somewhere, might get offended by something they say. They try to have it both ways on too many issues. None of them are worse than Clinton.
Look at this:
After a tour, the candidate took questions from the crowd. We accused Clinton of using a plant at Yearly Kos, too, although Peter Daou denied it and I accepted his word. Regardless, we don't need this kind of candidacy. Do we really want more of this? Do we want the Kathleen Willeys of the world to come crawling out of the woodwork accusing the Clintons of murdering their cats? Say no to the Clinton campaign. Her nomination will put everything at risk and make us all want to throw up every single day.
Why No to Clinton | 12 comments (12 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Why No to Clinton | 12 comments (12 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
|
Login
We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris
|
|||||||||
Booman Tribune Homepage admin@boomantribune.com powered by Scoop
More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.
|
|||||||||||
© 2009 Booman Tribune