I’m sure that by now we all can more or less agree to the fact Hillary all along has been planning to run for the presidency – at least since the days she was in the White House.
Since she has been hearing for the past seven years how much people “miss Bill” (believe me, I’ve heard it), and Bill is right there with her, the fund raising and the limelight were hers. Therefore, she assumed that she was the heir apparent to the Democrat ticket.
And along comes Obama, stealing the spotlight.
There are hundreds of reasons why, but here are the most salient:
The first and most obvious is that Obama is a charismatic and energetic public speaker that manages to deliver a one-hour speech without once sounding like he’s haranguing the great unwashed. Compared to Hillary’s shrillness, Obama’s way ahead on that department.
Obama is also nice looking but not too nice looking. He’s photogenic enough to be attractive but his slight resemblance to Urkle and his ears remind you that he’s “a regular guy”, not a matinee idol. His clothing style is not over groomed (the way Romney’s is) and he’s comfortable with – among many others – Mr. Potato Head.
Trivial as it may look, Obama looks sincerely at ease while Hillary’s doing a “say cheese”. One could say that these two pictures depict their personal styles.
The “change” mantra
The electorate is always ready for a “change” every eight years, if only because of presidential term limits. That’s a constitutional fact of life.
Only the most self-deluded Clintonista could possibly believe that installing a Clinton restoration would mean “change”. My idea of change, and I venture guess I’m not alone, does not involve bringing back a presidential wife as a candidate the way Peron did in Argentina.
By hanging his star on “change” Obama is indeed bringing to the fore not only a rejection of a Republican candidate but also the issue of a copresidency, and dismissing it as a viable option.
The “ick” factor
Betsy posts, Now we find out: they really can’t stand Bill, on how Liberals are finally, decades later, figuring out that maybe, maybe a new Clinton White House would not be such a great idea. Betsy’s husband listed a whole littany,
Here’s the Charlotte Observer, not mincing words: “The Many Lies of Bill Clinton“. Here’s Vanity Fair‘s Bruce Feirstein: “Bill Clinton, Nasty Man“. Here’s the Washington Post‘s Colbert I. King, “Billary’s Adventures in Primaryland“. Bob Herbert: “Questions for the Clintons“. William Grieder: “Slick Willie Rides Again“. John Nichols: “It’s Time to Retire Bill Clinton“. Finally, here is uber-Liberal Jonathan Chait asking–gasp! horrors!–“Is the Right Right on the Clintons?” (No, he asserts, but they’re uncomfortably close.)
Betsy also says,
[Frank] Rich had a column this weekend warning about the shoes that might drop if Hillary is chosen as the Democratic candidate and then we start finding out what is being hidden in the Clinton papers that haven’t been opened to the public or what we will find out about those Friends of Bill who have been sending the big bucks to Bill’s library in Little Rock.
Even Newsweek is shedding some light on FOBs by now.
A lot of Democrats are wondering if they are willing to defend this sort of goings-on for another Clinton term. Witness the Kennedys’ endorsements.
As David Brooks puts it,
But the event was striking for another reason, having to do with the confluence of themes and generations. The Kennedys and Obama hit the same contrasts again and again in their speeches: the high road versus the low road; inspiration versus calculation; future versus the past; and most of all, service versus selfishness.
Indeed, the Kennedys’ endorsements are telling the big money to back Obama.
The young voter
As David Brooks again,
The audience at American University roared. It was mostly young people, and to them, the Clintons are as old as the Trumans were in 1960.
Small wonder that there’s all this buzz in the name of changiness
Later this week I’ll post about my misgivings about Obama.