My new column for the FT asks why Hillary's campaign has stumbled. A main reason, I argue, is the sincerity deficit.
When Texas and Ohio vote in Tuesday’s Democratic primaries, they may bring Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency to an end. If she loses either of those states, her bid is over barring the formalities. This is a position few expected her to be in. Not long ago, success in the primaries and victory in the general election were regarded as almost inevitable. What went wrong?For the answer, one should turn (as always) to the teachings of Marx. “The secret of success in life is sincerity,” Groucho once famously observed. “If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
This truth about the human condition applies with particular force to politics. Mrs Clinton tries hard to fake sincerity – so hard it is painful to watch. Sometimes, in fact, I suspect that she really is sincere and only looks as though she is faking. Barack Obama, on the other hand, may actually be sincere – and if he is not, he fakes it so well it makes no difference. Elections are won and lost formany reasons, but if I had to point to just one in the present case, this would be it.
You can read the whole column here.
I respectfully disagree. My family, most friends, and many colleagues find Hillary Clinton to be the sincere candidate. We know her, good and bad. We trust her to work hard and fight for us. We believe she is the most qualified to take care of the issues that face our nation at this time.
Barack Obama talks a lot, but we have looked at both candidates and the press gave us so little about Barack that we cannot vote for him Tuesday. Gotta say - after over a year of hearing gushing stories about him, we were shocked to discover recently that he had such a poor track record for attendance and had not held a meeting for his post as Chair of the sub-committee on Europe with NATO jurisdiction.
It is very very sad to think that we are just now hearing about this stuff and about his meddling in Kenya and Rezko ties and the Canada NAFTA incident. Perhaps there are reasonable explanations, but it leaves a very bad taste in our mouths to know that the press has not known about any of this for the past year - or knew and did not tell us. What else is there? He is a stranger.
Hillary Clinton 2008
Barack Obama has charisma. I love listening to him. I loved his books. He is a media sensation (creation)?
Sincerity is proven over time. And Hillary Clinton wins that argument hands down.
People are infatuated with Obama. But people LOVE Hillary Clinton.
You have to ask this. After all the favorable press (I mean you would think he is a Messiah), after outspending her in many states by 2 to 1 (not counting all of those 527's and unions spending millions) after having 3-5 times as many people on the ground - why is she still viable and still in the race?
Hillary Clinton has done a lot of good for a lot of people and we love her. We have known her for years. We sincerely love her. The press did not tell us to - they have tried hard to tell us not to.
But, actions speak louder than words. Time proves sincerity.
Interesting article. Many military officers respect Hillary Clinton and support her and want her as their Commander In Chief. They know she is sincere.
1. General Wesley Clark
2. General John M. Shalikashvili
3. General Henry Hugh Shelton
4. General Johnnie E. Wilson
5. Admiral William Owens
6. Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
7. Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
8. Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
9. Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
10. Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vllrath
11. Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
12. Major General Roger R. Blunt
13. Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
14. Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
15. Major General Paul D. Eaton
16. Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
17. Major General Antonio M. Taguba
18. Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
19. Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
20. Rear Admiral David Stone
21. Brigadier General Michael Dunn
22. Brigadier General Belisario Flores
23. Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
24. Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
25. Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
26. Brigadier General Preston Taylor
27. Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
28. Brigadier General Jack Yeager
Wow, it looks like the Clinton campaign has bookmarked this site....
Wow, it looks like the Clinton campaign has bookmarked this site....
Yeah. Wolfson, Penn and McAuliffe --all heard from.
Real persuasive, too... ::rolleyes::
Yes, this is exactly what strikes me every time I see Hillary in action. Is it Al Gore syndrome all over again? Gore famously manufactured a persona during the 2000 race and put off many people.
But there may be something sadder here: Hillary and Al Gore are both on the intellectual side, and so it isn't merely a lack of charisma but a sort of anti-charisma that they have to overcome (to many in the audience). No one accused Thatcher of being an intellectual. They are the way they are because they know their true persona wouldn't fly at all in anti-intellectual America. Obama manages to sound smart without sounding intellectual. Can you imagine what the handlers would have done with Lincoln?
I'm with Jason and 48 hrs. With so much "astroturfing" here in the opening comments, I feel like I'm actually in Houston.
To the shills for Senator Clinton in the first 3 comments: You guys personify irony.
The column is about sincerity. You respond with a) disproven mudslinging (Rezko, sure; Kenya? Canada? GTFOH!), b) insulting conjecture that Obama is a media creation, c) a list of irrelevant military endorsements.
Why not address the issue raised in the column? Is she losing for her perceived insincerity?
When's she planning on releasing those tax returns, anyway?
It was good of you to put this in print. Its been hard to explain to non-Americans that the Clintons are phonies and what that means.
I dont think they're evil, but they are clearly not what they seem.
I have the same sense as you, they would both be more popular if they let people get to know them. HRC may have this oportunity if she has a long career in the senate.
I think your FT piece is right on target: I've long found Hillary excruciating to watch for just these reasons. Her attempts at sincerity make look like someone who's been given the word in a game of "Charades". I have to say that I usually couldn't stand hearing Bill Clinton speak, either, but not because the sincere act was done so poorly, but because it was done so well - the key word being "act".
The commenter above who mentioned Al Gore has a point, too, since Gore was similarly painful to listen to in 2000. But I don't know if the anti-intellectual angle is quite right. I don't think that America is anti-intellectual so much as "aintellectual". It's just not considered as much of an asset as a smart person would hope. I think that an intelligent person can come across well to a large crowd, even as an intelligent person. But admittedly, it takes skill, which Gore didn't have.
My worry is that this fight will cause irreparable harm to the democrats chances of winning in november. Hilliary's 3 am ad is just fodder for McCain, and I agree would be a better ad if McCain picked up the phone at the end. But who is surprised that the generals support Hilliary who is the one who voted for the war "without fully looking through the briefing document"
Barack Obama is sincere and charismatic and as I heard Hilliary say herself this weekend when asked about being tested by answering that phone at 3 am, "no one knows except those who have had to do it" (paraphasing)ie she has never had to do it either. It is about character.
The Clinton's have always campaigned with a sense of entitlement starting with Bill Clinton's 1988 Democratic Convention performance when he sucked nearly an hour of prime air time away from Dukakis. Today, Hillary is distancing herself from NAFTA after claiming for years that it was one of Bill's crown jewel accomplishments. She’s not creditable on issues which contributes to our feeling that she’s not sincere.
"But people LOVE Hillary Clinton."
You can't be serious.
Clive,
I just opened my paper and congratulations: you just embarrassed yourself with this moronic column.
More tripe like this and the FT will lose its reputation.
Clive, there has been so many millions of words written in this unprecedented race that the mind runneth over.
Nonetheless, you have hit on the salient point I believe for many former Clinton supporters, like myself, who have become more disillusioned the more we watched her.
She is simply not authentic.
The media did not create him. He created himself. Read his books, doubters. He's the real deal: a warm, human, intellectually accomplished, nuanced thinker...who's not afraid to show his heart, his passion and his fun side.
This is why he is as far along as he is, whether he wins or not: he's done that rare thing in American politics, actually inspired people, young and old, black, brown, white, yellow, to get off their couches and get involved.
For that alone, he's contributed more to the regeneration of the national spirit than anything Hillary Clinton has ever done, or perhaps ever will do.
There are good race horses, and great race horses. And then there was seabiscuit. Hillary Clinton is a good race horse. And that's saying a lot.
Obama is...well, you get the picture.
Trust your heart. We've all been in our heads for way too long in this country.
Kudos to Clive. And if you read the responses of the Hillary pods, you understand why such commentary is needed so desperately.
Sincerity is cheap. (1) Your five-year-old nephew held your hands, not letting you go, tears in his eyes. Moved, you still went back to Cleveland. The kid forgot about you two days later. Sure, it was still a sincere and sweet moment, but definitely not one to dwell on. (2) Do you have this friend, who is awkward, and whose face does not know how to "talk." He/she stood by you during your most difficult time in life. He/she turned out to be the most sincere person you have ever met!
In the end, authenticity counts. Authenticity is shown through the choices that we have made under pressure and in front of everyone. In the case of Hillary, it is the choices she made in front of the public, in glory or in humiliation. For the record, her choices should be scrutinized and criticized.
“Mrs. Clinton tries hard to fake sincerity”is a cheap and vicious attack. It is saying much more than just “Mrs. Clinton does not look sincere.” (1) It accuses that Mrs. Clinton is lying. Not any lies, like white lies or political misstatement. She is lying to fool our emotions! The worst kind! (2) We are encouraged to be disgusted by her, on a very personal level. After all, the most hurtful moment in our life is when our emotion is manipulated.
As a commentator, if you do not like Clinton, just say it. If you think she does not look sincere, just say it. However, it is questionable to claim that she is lying with emotions; it is questionable to display your personal disgust about her. This is too personal.
We are not God, and we should be careful judging someone by his/her face. Some of my best friends are slightly awkward. This post is for them as well.
I'm going to arrive at sincerity in a moment. The batch of polls out of Ohio today show Obama's going to lose by a substantial margin tomorrow in Ohio. In Quinnipiac's poll for instance Obama is losing among White Women by a giant 40 point margin (26% to 68%). In both the PPP poll and the SUSA poll Obama is losing among Whites by a 25 point margin. The PPP and SUSA polls are also notable for the low percentage of Ohio Independents indicating an intention to vote -- that's one of Obama's demographic strengths indicating they won't be showing up on voting day. I believe Obama's campaign, to be losing now like this, must have done something wrong in Ohio over the past week. What? A key part of Obama's core message, one of his key advantages against Clinton, is -- to quote from one of his ads -- "I will always tell you where I stand and what I think". That claim has been totally contradicted by his posturing on international trade and NAFTA over the past week. His loss in Ohio tomorrow must be attributed, in part at least, to his NAFTA ads undermining his core message about straightforwardness. As a footnote, the more-or-less same ads, but with a lower profile, also ran in Wisconsin (but not in earlier states -- not in Maryland and Virgina for instance). In Wisconsin the NAFTA theme disappeared in the last few days before polling, and Obama gained in those few days. In Wisconsin in the days when the ads were running and in the news -- specifically the few days around his economic speech at Jainsville -- he wasn't gaining. The truth is that Obama's NAFTA stuff is phony and it's a turnoff, and it's bad press, and it's a basis for people to see Clinton as not worse after all. Obama hasn't downright lied about his positions on international trade but he has been cynically and deliberately misleading the more ignorant, less engaged types of voters who only have the benefit of soundbites and ads to go on. If he fails to knock out Clinton tomorrow, it'll be his just deserts. Clinton has been suffering under the disability of the perception that "she'll say anything to get elected". Obama has now inflicted on himself the same disability. If she wins Ohio tomorrow by 15%, she could still win the whole thing.
I read your piece and think it sounds about right. but what I'm realizing in this election is that voters may not care about authenticity as much as I had hoped. I know Reagan was such a force because voters believed him, they connected with him. I'm an Obama supporter but I believe Hillary will get the nomination. I've read both his books, his first one I read years ago. I even tried to read Hillary's book. She is my Senator and I did vote for her both times. But voters, it seems, don't care about authenticity; they care about attack politics and smear and simple-minded ads geared towards our most intellectually lazy impulses. Hillary will win TX and Ohio and then go on to win Pennsylvania. From there, she will convince the DNC to seat Florida (and Michigan), and she'll have the nomination. Obama is far from perfect, but he is asking Americans to think again, to challenge the CW of what politics can be about. The triumph of Sen. Clinton (who takes people for fools and insults their intelligence) will represent the final break between what American politics can accomplish if given the chance, and what American politics will accomplish if its allowed to run its course.
We find Hillary to be quite sincere and straightforward. I have been baffled by the critical treatment in the press; the presumption of something terrible about her; and a weird conflation of Bill (who betrayed her for pete's sake) with her. I asked my mid-west friends to explain to me why they just hate her, but they have no reasons, just reptile brain responses. Bill Maher said he thinks these gut reactions tell us more about the speaker than about Hillary. When, he asked, has she ever been unkind? or a "bitch"? or arrogant and unapproachable? Let's face the truth--sexism runs deeper, and is more insidious, than racism in America. I'll be happy to have Obama but I think we'd be better off in the long run with Hillary. Thinking, that's the missing key!
We find Hillary to be quite sincere and straightforward. I have been baffled by the critical treatment in the press; the presumption of something terrible about her; and a weird conflation of Bill (who betrayed her for pete's sake) with her. I asked my mid-west friends to explain to me why they just hate her, but they have no reasons, just reptile brain responses. Bill Maher said he thinks these gut reactions tell us more about the speaker than about Hillary. When, he asked, has she ever been unkind? or a "bitch"? or arrogant and unapproachable? Let's face the truth--sexism runs deeper, and is more insidious, than racism in America. I'll be happy to have Obama but I think we'd be better off in the long run with Hillary. Thinking, that's the missing key!
Disclosure: I'm an Obama supporter, but - sadly - live in a state where I won't get to vote for him in a primary until May.
I will not vote for HRC for two reasons. The first is what you allude to in this column - I don't trust her. She's obviously a consummate politician, and a Clinton to boot - which means she has, and will, govern by poll. She's obviously quite competent, but this IS an election about character, and I don't recognize any principled stands recognizable in her career as a public figure other than that she will do what she needs to do to survive politically. And that's not someone I want as my president.
Secondly, she is an obvious loser as a national candidate. Anyone who thinks HRC could win a national election - again John McCain, to boot - needs a reality check.
Hillary Clinton for Senate Majority Leader!
This post is simply more mindless, personal bashing.
Was Sen. Obama "sincere' when he claimed he "passed" a bill regulating nuclear waste dumping, a bill that never passed and which as the NYT exposed, Obama watered down to protect his number one contributor, Exelon, a waste dumper in his home state?
Was Obama "sincere" when voted "present" 129 times in the Illinois legislature, and then got the party leaders to take bills away from the legislators that created them, fought for them for years, give them to Obama, so he could get credit and have a fake resume?
Was Obama "sincere" when he sent his campaign manager to say on CNN after Clinton beat him in New Hampshire that "Clinton never cried for Katrina" and "Clinton said states with black voters don't count"?
Was Obama "sincere" when he bashed Sen. Edwards for not controlling third-party political advertising -- before Obama unleashed 527 ads targeting Hispanics that said "Clinton abandoned our people" and turned union thugs loose to threaten voters in Nevada?
Was Obama sincere when he wrote letters urging the state to give property to Rezko & Davis' land development for $1 and then have taxpayers foot the full $14.6 million bill for development -- or when he said he never did any favors for Rezko? Which is it?
Obama is like Giuliani: The more you see of him the less you like him.
BTW guys I found some brilliant/awesome analysis on Obama’s Fundraising and other current happenings on the campaign. I haven’t seen anything like this mentioned anywhere in the MSM.
Check out the article “Follow the Money” on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165, “Bush’s Twin and the G.O.P.” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=172 and “Barack Obama’s Apotasy” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=101
Check their “Political Analysis” and "Humor" sections for other striking perspectives and comedic analysis on both parties.
I love Obama's eloquence, but if you look at this campaign metaphorically. Hillary stands as experience and Obama stands for hope. Normally We the people choose experience to get us out of hard places, but apparently the people are choosing hope over experience something that is a big risk. I hope we choose right this time.
Zane