gentlemen, er… candidates, start your engines!
hillary is officially in it (as if there was ever any doubt!)
i have to admit having mixed feelings on this. on the one hand, i would desperately love to see a “madam president”, and believe that I will in my lifetime. on the other hand, i *can’t* just vote for a woman on principle – i’d have to actually believe in her platform. tokenism isn’t enough. as is always said of any minority looking to break historical barriers, you have to be twice as good as the majority representative you’re competing against. as smart and capable as she seems to be, i’m not sure hillary *is* twice as good. while i find myself agreeing with most of her policy ideas, i am also acutely aware of the significant step towards the centre which she has taken in her role as a senator trying to curry favour and keep her job. it smacks of sellout to me. i might still vote for her – but it would depend on who the alternative was. and i’m not sure you can win the presidency by “not losing” to the worse candidate.
but i think there are two much bigger reasons hillary won’t win the white house. the first is named barack obama. now, I don’t think obama is going to win either the democratic nomination *or* the presidency, but I do think he plays the role of spoiler in this race, siphoning just enough votes from the front runner to make things difficult.
the second reason? hillary just ain’t “likeable” – that ephemeral, but oh-so-necessary quality for appealling to the public at large. that certain je ne sais quoi or x factor, if you will, which *shouldn’t* matter in the polls, but which inevitably does. we americans like to elect people we think would be good next door neighbours, or who we find attractive or charismatic for whatever reason. it’s that charisma which barack obama has in spades, making him a serious contender in spite (or perhaps because) of the fact that very little is known about him. it’s why bush was elected (and re-elected) even in the face of some serious capability qualms. and it is precisely that ineffable quality which you either have or you don’t. you can become more well known, loosen up, try to be seen as more down-to-earth – but you can’t grow charisma, no matter how hard you try.
i think ultimately, that will be her downfall. as smart as she is (and she is), as capable as she would be (and she would be), i think in the end she’s doomed to the same fate as john kerry: an eminently qualified, “unlikeable” has-run. which is a shame really.
ah well, there’s always the next election.
Like this post
2008 presidential election, hillary clinton, barack obama 
Comment by Anglofille
20.01.2007 @ 23:00 pm
Hmmm, I have to disagree. I think Obama is looking for the VP slot. And I think if the Clinton political machine wants him out of the presidential race, he’ll bow out.
As for being likable, I agree that Hillary isn’t very likable. People thought this would hurt her in her first senate run. It didn’t. Women came out to vote for her in droves. And her husband is still extremely likable, which will help. And if she gets Obama as VP, even better.
While I agree that women shouldn’t vote for her just because she’s a woman, I do think that her femaleness and the vicious attacks she will suffer from the right-wing (which may be sexist in nature) will mobilize women voters, perhaps prompting women to vote who otherwise wouldn’t. And I think it’s good if women use our political power as a block. Women aren’t a minority group — we’re the majority. We just don’t take advantage of the power that we have. There’s nothing wrong with using that power.
Comment by Jen
20.01.2007 @ 23:44 pm
I dunno – I like your scenario lots better, but I don’t have as much faith as you!
I would say that her “unlikeability” (is that even a word?) didn’t hurt her in *new york* – a place not exactly known for electing cuddly types (pataki, giuliani, cuomo and bloomberg are hardly touchy-feely!) sadly, I believe most of the rest of america has very different electoral criteria.
women *are* the numerical majority – but if you’re a majority without most of the power, it’s just semantics, isn’t it?
however i fully agree that it would be wonderful if hillary were a rallying point for mobilisation! i just think too many women in the u.s. are non-commital towards politics in general, and therefore are not terribly motivated. (gross generalisations, but you get my drift – i think too many women don’t find much to relate to in our overwhelmingly patriarchal system, and don’t have the passion to try to change that.)
I do think people may vote for her out of nostalgia for the Clinton administration and a vague hope that somehow being the “first husband” will allow him to exert influence. God I miss that administration…
Comment by gigi
21.01.2007 @ 22:45 pm
i actually think barak is a strong contender for the democratic nomination. as you said, “you can’t grow charisma” and he happens to have A LOT of it.
Comment by gigi
21.01.2007 @ 22:47 pm
on second thought, i should use his last name instead of his first if I’m not using them together. so, Obama it is.