FT.com | Clive Crook’s blog | Column: Hillary Clinton gets it sincerely wrong

March 3, 2008

Column: Hillary Clinton gets it sincerely wrong

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.

It is surely telling that the most effective moments in Mrs Clinton’s campaign have been those rare times when a real person has appeared to break through: the tears in New Hampshire, the moving and seemingly unaffected tribute to wounded soldiers at the end of the Houston debate the other day. But for most of the time she has veered from one false personality to another, often during the course of a single debate or interview. One moment she would be acting tough, the next warm; now aloof, now approachable; now a fun person, fond of a joke (that was the worst), now stern and serious. In every moment of repose came that scary rictus smile, to emphasise the lack of authenticity and remind one irresistibly of Jack Nicholson in The Shining.

This, of course, is the very style of commentary that Mrs Clinton and her team blame for her predicament – full of pro-Obama bias, they would say, and devoid of analytical substance. That complaint does have some merit. Especially at the beginning of the campaign, when Mr Obama was just an interesting possibility, commentators were far too kind to him – declaring television debates in which he had been trounced by Mrs Clinton a close thing, for instance.

But mistakes in reporting this story did not all go in Mr Obama’s favour. The press has picked up the line that he is all style and no substance as eagerly as the Clinton campaign could wish. Mrs Clinton’s position on healthcare, for instance, is reverently acknowledged as a working blueprint, with every last detail nailed down. Not at all: it is a set of bullet points, no more detailed than Mr Obama’s outlined proposal. Mrs Clinton has not even said how her individual health-insurance mandate – the crucial difference, she tirelessly insists, between her plan and Mr Obama’s – will be enforced. And consider her “time out” on trade. Could you have a vaguer policy than that?

The main thing, however, is that in choosing between Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama, character is key because their differences on policy are trivial. This is why the complaint about style over substance falls flat. Moreover, it is no expression of bias to say that Mr Obama has grown more confident and effective in the debates; or that he is a more likeable and appealing politician than Mrs Clinton; or that audiences respond to him with far greater enthusiasm. These things just happen to be true. The Clinton campaign only made matters worse by striving to deny what was obvious to everybody else.

Lack of charm need not have been an insuperable obstacle. Few people ever accused former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher of being likeable or appealing, but she won elections anyway. She was no phoney: what you saw was what you got. Mrs Clinton’s focus groups complain of a lack of warmth and the candidate is next seen in jeans and sweatshirt joshing tensely with reporters on the campaign plane. “See, she’s smiling.”

How much this multiple personality disorder is a reflection of the candidate herself or of the people running her campaign is difficult to say. But the Democratic party itself must bear much of the blame. Its adulation of the Clintons went to her head. It bred complacency and a sense of entitlement. The campaign expected an easy win and had no real plan of action beyond Super Tuesday. Since the first Obama surge, Mrs Clinton and her advisers have seemed in shock, vacillating between insisting that everything is still on track and desperately reaching for another personality for the candidate to try on.

Mrs Clinton was never as strong a contender as her courtiers had led her to think. Her claim of vast experience – the crux of her campaign – was contestable at the very least. Once the campaign began, her husband was likely to be as much a liability as an asset, and so it proved. She proudly exemplified a kind of politics (“I’m a fighter”) that many Americans had had enough of. In Mr Obama she turned out to be facing an exceptional opponent, with all the novelty and authenticity she lacked. And then, if all that were not enough, her campaign, once rattled, was woefully managed.

Bearing all this is mind, the real surprise may not be that she is on the point of defeat, but that she still retains – for one more day, at least – some small chance of succeeding.

March 3rd, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

36 Responses to “Column: Hillary Clinton gets it sincerely wrong”

Comments

Who do you believe has successfully faked the sincerity test?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1820

.
Posted by: Jeff | March 3rd, 2008 at 5:52 am | Report this comment
Although your column correctly diagnoses an essential failing of Hillary’s campaign to date, it elevates “sincerity” over Obama’s superb ground game, the importance of which cannot be underestimated. It wasn’t just that he had (and has) a message that resonates or that she put too many eggs in the Super Tuesday basket. He out-maneuvered her, pure and simple. That said, my wife, after a brief Obama flirtation, is now back in Hillary’s camp fiercely. Because she has an infallible political barometer, I won’t be surprised if Hillary has more than a “small chance” of succeeding after all. Women will ultimately drive the election of the next U.S. President.
Posted by: Peter | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:20 am | Report this comment
Dead-on accurate & a fervent hope that “the small chance” is diminishing to nothing. Brilliant use of Marx (I nearly choked on my morning cereal at that sentence).
Posted by: Ken | March 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm | Report this comment
SHOULD HILLARY RETURN MONEY FROM COMPANY ACCUSED OF SEXUAL HARRASMENT?

NBC’s Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin, First Read, report that “Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show. The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including “sexual assaults,” “degrading anti-female language” and “obscene suggestions.” Sen. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is “ongoing” and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court.” Should Hillary Clinton Reject and Denounce this money since she is supposed to a Champion of women’s rights?

Hillary Clinton has no Credibility on national security since she cast her Yes vote to authorize war in Iraq. There where other Senators who voted NO! They knew to vote yes was to automatically Invade a Country that had nothing to do with 911, but all about OIL, because they read the National Intelligence Estimate before they made their decision, the most important foreign policy decision of our times! That is not Judgment, it is incompetence, and it is the wrong kind of Experience. We have to ask, what National Security Experience Does She Really Have and will she run the country like she has run her Campaign?
Posted by: Julie | March 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm | Report this comment
Will she run her whitehouse the way she has run her campaign? That is the seminal question. One must remember she values loyalty above experience and capability. She is a divider not a uniter. She is not a visionary but is a wonk who gets mired in minutia. She has lived in Gov’t provided housing til moving to NY to run for Senate…Overall , she has lived on the dole for the majority of her life…WOULD ONE CONSIDER THIS TO BE A LEADER?
Posted by: docb | March 3rd, 2008 at 2:18 pm | Report this comment
when talking about “sincerity”, Graucho Marx is not a person to quote, being that he was married three times and all three wives became alcoholics.

Obama is “really sincere”, but to who? Louis Farrakhan??(see assoc. press)
Posted by: j carpe | March 3rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm | Report this comment
Clive Crook may be underestimating the amount of substance in Barack Obama’s speeches, but he is right on point about Hillary Clinton’s sincerity problem. In 2000 and 2004, the Democrats’ inability to pick a candidate who could connect with the voters contributed to their losses. Hillary Clinton’s supporters now propose to remedy this problem by picking a candidate who “connects” with Republicans, Independents, and many Democrats as well - by antagonizing them through her lack of sincerity.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is so driven by her outrageously high paid strategists, her focus groups, and the machine politicians who, in an earlier time, would have been known as party hacks, but today are called “superdelegates”, that her real personality, whatever it may be, has little chance of coming through.

This does not mean that one must accept the Republican caricature of Hillary Clinton as a modern Lady Macbeth who is so driven by ambition that she will stop at nothing to attain power, any more than one should be taken in by the equally absurd propaganda that Barack Obama is an empty windbag with a gift for mouthing left wing platitudes as if they were profound political insights - i.e. a Democratic version of Ronald Reagan. But Mr. Crook is right to speak about Hillary Clinton’s appearance of having a sense of entitlement and the negative effects of her connection with Bill Clinton, about whom so many Democrats have such a great feeling of ambiguity.

Both Clive Crook and Gideon Rachman have rightly pointed out how political slogans, such as “change” (one of the hoariest political cliches of all time), which are meaningless in themselves, can take on great significance through their context. This is unquestionably true of Senator Obama’s call for change - change from George Bush, Dick Cheney and their undermining of our democracy in order to serve the interests of a wealthy elite.

But, for millions of voters, “change” also means change from the Clinton presidency, with its arrogance, “triangulation”, and, though this was certainly no fault of Hillary Clinton’s, impeachment proceedings. Voters in both parties, as well as independents, are looking for the kind of change which Barack Obama has come to symbolize - not moment to moment changes in Hillary Clinton’s persona.

Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | March 3rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm | Report this comment
CC has nailed the big issue affecting this campaign. It was encapsulated for me in Obama’s comments before Iowa, when he said that he and his wife could still remember what it was like to be normal people with typical problems. The Clintons have never had a normal existence, which is why when they talk about the problems that need to be addressed, and how they would address them, it comes across as insincere and purely political.
Posted by: Albert in Ohio | March 3rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm | Report this comment
I’ll repeat this as best I can. I found this on MSNBC. Someone posted a summary of HillBill’s vaunted 35 years of “experience.”

1 year non-profit work
3 years working on capitol hill as a staffer
15 years in a Little Rock law firm as a corp. lawyer
(8 years as Arkansas first lady)doing umm…
8 years as America’s first lady, completely botching the health care reform initiative, then, ummm…
8 years as NY Senator, umm…

The point is the 35 years of experience amounts to really being her cheat-at-all-costs-with-whoever-is-within-reach husband’s sidekick.

As a former POTUS spouse she had access to the $ that could fund a senate campaign. Her only real opponent, Guiliani, dropped out. Shazam, she’s a US Senator, and frankly bully for her.

But what has she done in the position?

Fought the Patriot Act tooth and nail as it dismantled our system of civil liberties? That would be a “no.”

Barred the door against incompetent Supreme Court judicial nominees? Uh uh.

Screamed bloody murder when Bush was making the worst foreign policy choice in a generation? Nope

So where exactly was this world class leader with all this “experience?” Tucked in behind all her Senate colleagues trying to build a “centrist” record she could run on for the presidency.

Only trouble is she engaged a bunch of loyal incompetents who ran into a guy who wasn’t fooled by the “presumptive nominee” nonsense and had an idea.

He executed. She didn’t.

That’s why she’s about to be booted out of the national ring tomorrow by the OH and TX voters.

Question is, will she retire from the field gracefully? As Eugene Robinson wrote in the Washington Post last week, what would the press have said if the Obama shoe had been on the other foot? If HillBill had run out 11 straight wins, how would he have been treated?

Let’s hope the voters decide on the future, as opposed to another round of Whitewater politics.
Posted by: Adirondax | March 3rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm | Report this comment
I do not trust Hillary’s judgement and feel her management experience is weak. This is not likely to get better if she is elected to be President.
Posted by: Concerned | March 3rd, 2008 at 4:06 pm | Report this comment
The best analysis on Clinton I have seen. Thank you.
I just want to add if the “red” phone rings at 3 am and HRC is the President, it is most likely would be about BIll, getting in trouble … again.
Posted by: SP | March 3rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm | Report this comment
Due to space considerations this article concentrated on Hillary getting her sincerity wrong. Imagine the tomes it would take to list what else she got wrong?

And of course, the shortest article would be what she got right.
Posted by: james d granata | March 3rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm | Report this comment
Second-rate journalism. You won’t go far with such hate-mongering. One would think Hillary owes you an apology for being the success that you are not.
Posted by: tola | March 3rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Report this comment
A perceptive and incisive analysis. Enjoyed the Marx quote too! Many years in the future, when historians dissect this campaign, they will note that Obama’s success was rooted in (a) his supple and sophisticated intellect, (b) his capacity to inspire, and (c) his superior grass-roots organizing — with most of the weight on (b) and (c).

Imagine — a president who is a genuine intellectual (when was the last time we had that? Wilson? Ever?), a genuine progressive, AND someone who exudes charisma and the capacity to move and inspire people. What a combo! I just hope he surrounds himself with people who are as smart as he is.

Obama Campaign: You guys need a Council of Historians, or Council of Historican Advisors, to help you refine and sharpen your international analysis. It’s competent now, but it could be a lot better.

For instance: Obama was spot-on when he said in the most recent debate that the principal beneficiary of the Iraq war has been Iran. But he should’ve taken his analysis several steps further and said something like:

“Look, we need to step back and take a broader look at this part of the world. We need a strategic vision to guide us into the 21st century. That’s the problem with Bush’s policy toward Putin. Bush thought, wrongly, that he could base his Russia policy on a PERSONAL relationship with Putin — that he could read his “soul.” What he should’ve done is develop a STRATEGIC relationship with Russia that would serve America’s best long-term interests. The same with Iran, and Pakistan, and other major players on the world stage. We need to have a sophisticated historical understanding, and root our policies on an understanding of history, and of America’s long-term interests.”

I could go on, but you get the point. OBAMA CAMPAIGN: Form a Council of Historical Advisors!

Peace.
Posted by: Mike in Michigan | March 3rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm | Report this comment
Excellent column!

My belief is that Americans like to clean house every now and then. Perhaps the 2006 midterm elections were a sign of that (voting for the other team instead of voting for the Democrats).

Personally, the Clintons have gone from the charming couple from Arkansas to, what looks like, being a Washington insider. Having the 10-faced personality surely reinforces this feeling.

Hillary appears to be running a campaign that may have worked in 2000 or 2004. In 2000, she wouldn’t have had the Iraq baggage to deal with and in 2004 the economy was better and people weren’t as tired of Iraq.

Now, in 2008, people have become war-weary. And, the economy appears to be headed towards a recession and housing prices are falling precipitously. The issue at home have come to the foreground within the past year. Also, it feels as if we have very few choices wrt Iraq and that either Obama or Clinton would enact similar policies.
Posted by: Peter C | March 3rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm | Report this comment
Oh wow, this is the best news article I’ve read of the campaign so far. Finally, someone just came out and said it; Hillary is way too fake. I don’t know Obama, I don’t know his platform, and I don’t even like him; but all Hillary has to do is smile, and I start feeling like she is patronizing me. “Time out” on trade? “Go to your corners” on war? “Eat your veggies” on agriculture? Ugh.
Posted by: Adam Rinkleff | March 3rd, 2008 at 6:11 pm | Report this comment
Mr. Crook is 100% correct. I am a volunteer for
Senator Obama, a proud volunteer. I cannot vote in this election. I am 16 years old. I support Senator Obama because I know he can bring dignity back to America. We have become the most hated nation on earth and we have lost the respect of other countries. I firmly believe the Bush administration has been one built on untruths, C.E.O.’s, Oil, and more untruths. Senator Obama has already united people. He is a man of dignity, truth, and he is authentic. He has no ball and chain around his foot. He has no baggage as do Senator Clinton and John McCain. Senator Obama has a well-put-together campaign. I have learned so much from many of the interns and volunteers. I have learned from Senator Obama that I can become anything I set my mind to. I can be a doctor, I could wear a robe of black and sit on the Supreme Court, or I can one day live in the White House. I just need to stay authentic. We are Fired Up, Ready to Go. We are going all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Won’t you please come aboard?
Posted by: Rose | March 3rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm | Report this comment
This is refreshing article no matter which candidate you are rooting for. The premise is both intellegent and well supported…features grossly lacking in 90% or more of the other “farticles” written on this event. I think regardless of who’s camp you reside in, Hillary’s “padding” of the resume is highly insulting to all who are capable of both reading and thinking at the same time. Hillary seems angry no passionate; entitled, not engaged, and quite frankly as Mr. Crook so aptly highlighted- completely devoid of sincerity. I hope that in the future the application process for the job as president will take a much more detailed direction. In my industry I often have to present proof of my skills by sharing my portfolio (so to speak) or being ready to solve a “hypotehtical” problem on a white board in the actual interview. I want to see the substance that all of the candidates profess they posess…you know like the rest of us.

I hope your next article is on the absolute idiocracy of Gloria Steinem’s comment that McCain’s POW expereince has no value in his understanding of foreign relations. She should be slapped, and Hillary should take a nap and work on uniting the Dem party when she wakes up.
Posted by: Relieved Election Observre a.k.a Voter | March 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm | Report this comment
How right you are;she is only in the race because of the political establishment not only democrats but also republicans. In the last few days the attacks from both sides increased considerably - Obama is a common danger to their “inherited” rights and “rotation” policy. If he looses he will not loose to a fake and helpless Hillary for sure.
Posted by: EuLupu | March 3rd, 2008 at 7:02 pm | Report this comment
I also feel this analysis is right on the money. I like the analogy of Clinton trying on different personalities, in recent weeks, we’ve seen the good sport, the comedian, the self-righteous scolder, the fear-monger, the I-am-woman-watch-me-change-the-world, the mocker, the dignified Senator, did I forget any? Oh, the one that she tries on from time to time that she should stay away from because it looks bad on anyone — the whiner.

The MOST insincere thing that Hilary Clinton says, is that she is looking forward to a Democrat in the White House. I believe her choices for president are:
1) Herself
2) John McCain, because then she can run against him in 2012

Barack is a distant third in Hilary’s book.

An EXCELLENT column!!
Posted by: Anne | March 3rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm | Report this comment
If anyone ever was wondering why Hilary Clinton is struggling to take off with her campaign, here is the story the Clintons don’t want you to know (see the cartoon that preceeds these blogs). The main drag is Bill….and he has such a daunting wind shear. Add this to the 35 years of junk and baggage Hilary picked up along the way. Someone should tell her to “quickly” organize a “garage sale” and learn to travel light on the campaign trail. She keeps arguing the well worn line that she has 35 years of experience, but it is so hard to prove because she seem to have learned very little that is useful in her current campaign. From her planing and spending and her debate skills, she seem to be mostly incoherent at best, lacking clarity of a distinct message and appeal. Something akin to a trying to make a fat Ostrich fly. Like the biblical “Lot” of Genesis, she should learn to take the basic necessities from her long years in public service but just that. Rid herself of the excess luggage.

OBAMA on the otherr hand, seems to have learnd this secret quite well early in the game, which is no surprise, carryinmg as he does some of the Kenyan “light genes”. It is no secret that the Kenyans, arguably with the fastest pair of legs in Africa and the world have the “light genes” for speed and agility locked up in their system for centuries.
Posted by: Tee Tonic | March 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 pm | Report this comment
I totally agree with you Mr. Crook (can you please change your name first? It does not seem to agree with your character).

Mrs. Clinton truly exhibits the behavior of an ambitious high ranking corporate woman who had to struggle hard to achieve her rank by using the professionals’ advice for women to go ahead on the corporate ladder. You have to look and behave like a professional, you have to mimic your male counterparts in every respect, you have to master the skills of presenting your case (right or wrong so that it looks right), and you have to be master of creating high level bullet items (and call them “blue prints”) for your presentation and present it in a manner that listeners think of themselves dumb if they have a question on details since the whole thing was so simple and clear to the woman presenter. In practicing this behavior day-in and day-out this woman looses all her original self (where the sincerity lies) and becomes the highly successful one of the chief executive officers of the corporate.

After reading your article, I am sure you have a superb sense of judging a person’s character through his/her actions and body language. Unfortunately, in my personal experience, most Americans lack this ability profoundly. Americans judge people almost entirely through the words (on paper or by mouth) with total disregard to the underlying dishonesty even if it is blatant. So, as the common wisdom says that the chances of her winning in Ohio, Texas and the remaining states as in the past are slim, you just may have to be surprised by the results. After all these are the same people who voted twice for a totally incompetent president who has planted the seeds of America’s ruin deep under the ground from where it will be very hard for any new president to pull them out. The new president Clinton will most likely have no chance to be able do that for her lack of sincerity.
Posted by: manju Guha | March 3rd, 2008 at 7:40 pm | Report this comment
Judging by the reaction to his latest column, Clive Crook has really struck a chord with the way that most Americans, or at least an awful lot of us, even those who support her stands (such as they are) on the issues, feel about Hillary. What this means is all too clear: Even if Hillary manages to win the nomination, she has no chance of being elected. Do the Democrats really want to do this to themselves a third tme in a row? Do they want to do it to the country? Does Hillary?
Posted by: algasema | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm | Report this comment
first, you have to look at the person that wrote this column: I have been the FT’s Washington columnist since April 2007. I moved from Britain to the US in 2005 to write for the Atlantic Monthly. ((( maybe you should go back? this is american politics. )))

next: ask an obama person, what he is done? answer is always, no clue. but they like his sound bites.

now: ask an obama person, what he proposes? they have no clue. change, they will say. but what change? well, after he is in there, he will tell you. maybe he should address it before he is elected.

now, everybody seems to hate bush. but, what did bush do? the same as Obama. lots of sound bites. and you all voted for him. hmmm. for your information, congress makes the laws. congress makes change happen.

well, i hope you like the change you want, but have no idea what it is.
Posted by: Trent Black | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:28 pm | Report this comment
I loved your article. Great writing, along with insightful opinion. I smile and agree. Between the Hilary and Barack, their policies are essentially the same. So sales, management and presentation are key campaign attributes for the voters to judge. Authenticity, sincerity, honesty may seem like ethereal personality traits in a candidate, but in an environment of global idealogical warfare, I think the package is more than important, it is vital.
Posted by: Paula Anderson | March 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm | Report this comment
Excellent article - neatly sums up exactly why Hillary’s negativity numbers are so high and why they will not go down. It is bad enough to fake sincerity but when you can’t get it right, it is REALLY bad. Then you just look patronizing. Same reason why people don’t like used car salesmen.

We all know politicians aren’t 100% honest but looking at her, once is reminded of that very second. Let us hope she is gone after tomorrow.
Posted by: MM | March 3rd, 2008 at 9:10 pm | Report this comment
Great article! Hillary is psycho! I always wonder how she decides which personality to let out at any given time.
Posted by: Marian | March 3rd, 2008 at 9:45 pm | Report this comment
Well written piece, but DUH! The Clinton’s have always attempted to fake sincerity. The only difference is that Bill was better at acting sincere than Hillary. Just look at her facial expression when she says “My 35 years of experience…” It is obvious she knows she is lying through her clenched teeth.
Posted by: mike | March 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 pm | Report this comment
Hold on Mr Crook. It does seem to be an expression of bias to say that Obama is more likeable and appealing than Hillary Clinton. Obama turns me off with his religious-like emotional speeches. Where is the beef? Hillary being a ‘fighter’ does count because the Democratic candidate will have a fight on their hands against the Replubicans, something Obama has not seen yet with all of his adulation rock-star groupies. His ‘experience’ as a community organizer will be liked to kindergarden experience by the opposition. Heaven forbid if he becomes president. Who knows what he might do, and there will be no love feast with congress ragardless of his let’s all get together talk. he would be a good preacher though.
Posted by: Michael Ayres | March 3rd, 2008 at 10:13 pm | Report this comment
I completely agree with your assessment of the ever-changing faces of Hillary Clinton, and your comments illuminate a fundamental flaw that has plagued the past two democratic candidates as well.

Al Gore and John Kerry also showed American voters a new persona every week, best illustrated by Al Gore publicly, and awkwardly kissing Tipper one week and playing an angry, bloodthirsty hawk when the polls showed Gore looked “soft”. The democratic party has a history of “over-handling” their candidates, missing the lessons learned by presidents such as Bill Clinton, John Kennedy and George H. W. Bush - voters will elect the person who they feel they know best. I didn’t have any love for Bush, but I sure liked him better than Al Gore or John Kerry, simply because I knew what I was voting for.
Posted by: Tom Bry | March 4th, 2008 at 2:33 am | Report this comment
One of the reasons I won’t vote for Hilary Clinton even though she’s the same gender as I am. That’s not enough reason for me to vote for her. The woman comes across as a chameleon. Can’t even figure out which person to be in front of the voters. Not much sincerity in that.

I would gladly support a woman candidate for presidency if I feel that woman will be the best representative of the American people. I don’t get that feeling with Hilary Clinton.
Posted by: Katherine | March 4th, 2008 at 7:36 am | Report this comment
Who has been Swiftboating Obama, the Canadian Memo, where did that come from and who called Goolsbe and set him up? Who pushed up Rezko’s trial which was to start much later this year? Why did Somali picture come out, along with Farrakahn endoresement and mocking of his middle name? We have to ask these things? Who does not want to give unity and hope a chance? Is this part of the Kitchen Sink or may be the Basement? I do know its dirty politics and until we reject this kind of politicking in America we will be a pawn in their hands, the people of power, and never find our true Independence which Obama is offering. The Evil Ones are just getting started. Someone is trying to pull our strings. The Truth will come out. Hopefully, America we can see through this Rouse this time and elect CHANGE!
Posted by: Julie | March 4th, 2008 at 9:32 am | Report this comment
Judging by the latest polls, Hillary has a slight advantage in both of today’s big states. Her negative campaign against Obama seems to be working. What a shame for the Democrats, who are now well on the way to losing the election in the fall, and for America, no matter who comes out ahead today.

I also noticed yet another typo, this one in my last post, where I misspelled “time”. Since I almost never fail to include a mistake of some sort, at least I can claim to be more consistent than Hillary.
Posted by: algasema | March 4th, 2008 at 5:39 pm | Report this comment
To Hillary:

If you think you are a leader, look over your shoulder and if there is nobody following then you are just taking a walk.

I can only tell you what I see - she is not a leader - we all recognise a leader when we see one. She may have followers but so did Mr. Bush, so what?

I really appreciate the article, not only the well written and humorous parts, but also for focusing on a high profile as Mrs Clinton and describing how she is perceived in the eyes of us elite followers.

“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.”

You really need to like her not to be able to see that - so I fully understand people who do not agree.
Posted by: F Burgos (Swe) | March 5th, 2008 at 3:21 pm | Report this comment
1) I am not a Clinton supporter.
2) I am a regular FT reader who enjoys the generally balanced coverage of this election the paper has provided so far.

However, I always find it disturbing to see journalists using expressions, as you did in your article, like “These things just happen to be true”. It seems a majority of voters in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island held a different opinion. For them, your views on Obama, which we are led to believe are commonly accepted, do not happen to be true.

I think the public at large would be better off if the media would stick to what their role is: to report facts, not opinions. With journalists constantly offering their opinions rather than facts, we have ended up in a society where individuals do not consider the facts and then draw their own conclusions. They prefer the “ready meal”: an opinion ready to be adopted rather than the laborious analysis of facts before reaching a position on issues.

This is by no means an attack on your column which I will continue to enjoy; it is simply a general observation.
Posted by: Marco Sablone | March 6th, 2008 at 2:06 am | Report this comment
On March 3, the day before primary elections in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont, the pundits anointed Barak Obama the Democratic Party’s nominee for President in terms that made clear his selection and ultimate election were formalities. The only cloud on Mr. Obama’s horizon was their funeral for Hillary Clinton and her “old” Democratic campaign. On both occasions, Clive Crook marked the occasion with a suitable obituary on the Financial Times’ opinion page. No doubt to his (and other’s) consternation, on each occasion Senator Clinton spoiled the service by rudely demonstrating she and her campaign were very much alive with primary victories in New Hampshire, Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island.

In February Mr. Crook thought that Mr. Obama deserved the office because he might transform the nature of American politics while poor Hillary Clinton was simply same old, same old. On March 3, he said Senator Clinton “tries painfully hard to fake sincerity, so hard it is painful to watch.” In contrast, Obama “may actually be sincere—and if he is not, he fakes it so well that it makes no difference.” If forced to choose one reason why President Obama won the election, “this would be it.” Since Mr. Obama is not yet President—I do not seek to bury his campaign—and lost three of four primaries the next day, are we to conclude that Mr. Obama has been caught faking it and that being caught made the difference? He outspent Senator Clinton heavily and, the press said, he had outorganized her and his troops on the ground outnumbered hers. How then do we account for this? I accept Mr. Crook’s judgment: the answer lies in the sincerity of the candidates.

This interminable campaign has been marked by two moments of genuine sincerity unlike anything I have seen in almost fifty years of following American politics. These are the “tears” moment Senator Clinton had on the eve of the New Hampshire primary and her peroration at the Texas debate with Mr Obama. In contrast, although he has been buried in bouquets tossed his way by the working press—Mr. Crook being one of the better pitchers, we have seen no such moments from Mr. Obama to date. There are good reasons to believe we never will.

Before addressing those reasons, I must say that I cannot understand how Mr. Crook can sincerely conclude that either of those moments was “faked.” Certainly as to the first enough time has passed without a revelation that the moment was staged to force the conclusion that Senator Clinton’s expression was sincere. If there were any evidence that the person whose comment prompted the outburst was a Clinton campaign shill, reporters would have found it by now. The silence says no such evidence exists. That argument is not available to defend the sincerity of Senator Clinton’s unprompted description of her motives for seeking the White House at the end of the Texas debate. I am satisfied that since it is consistent with the New Hampshire moment, it is sincere. (By the way, Mr. Obama’s expression at that moment was priceless: he knew he had just heard the moment of that debate.)

Why will Barak Obama never give us such an insight into the motives for his ambition? Because the answer would be so ugly as to end his campaign. Listen to his stump speech; pay attention to his demeanor. Underlying these I perceive only Mr. Obama’s ego. What else in his short life and shorter public career says different?

Lest my conclusion—actually, my wife’s, a keener observer of human nature than I—put off the readers, this thought is not unique to my household. Philip Stevens, also of the FT, wrote on January 11:

There is not a scintilla of anything to be mistaken for modesty in Barak Obama’s pitch for the White House. Stripped of rhetorical ornament, it says vote for me because I am me.

I have never been able to watch a clip of Obama promising “change” without thinking, “Change what? How?” Nor can I hear the roar of “Yes We Can!” without asking “Can what?” The rhetoric that so enthralls most listeners, voters and reporters alike, is devoid of content—another observation not unique to me. Gideon Rachman, FT, February 26, 2008, p. 15:

. . .his most famous phrases are vacuous. The “audacity of hope”? It would be genuinely audacious to run for the White House on a platform of despair. Promising hope is simply good sense. “The fierce urgency of now”? It is hard to see what Mr. Obama means when he says this—other than that some inner voice has told him to run for president.

And then there is “Yes we can” . . .

. . .I had to . . .find out exactly what we can do. “Yes we can to justice and equality. Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world. Yes we can.

This sounds like a man doing an impression of what he thinks a great speech might be like.

Unfortunately, Mr. Rachman lacks the courage of his observations: “Just because Mr. Obama gives lousy, empty speeches, it does not mean he will be a lousy, empty president.”

Well, perhaps the content of the speeches do not determine the content of the presidency, but the tactic and the (lack of) content in the speeches are relevant to how we should judge the potential for an Obama presidency.

At best, a deliberate attempt to dazzle the electorate with empty speeches is a sign of contempt for the voters. There is an awful risk that people will put Mr. Obama into the White House with great expectations that he does not seem able to meet. Those who turned to him because he promised meaningful politics and government could well turn against him if he disappoints them. Would they then turn even more vengefully on the system which they will perceive he cynically manipulated to get his office? And, thanks to the vacuous content of his campaign, how can anyone know what the voters want, what they expect and what he must deliver to satisfy them? This seems to me a very dangerous game if the country is as exhausted and demoralized as it seems to be.
Posted by: Harold W. Borkowski | March 8th, 2008 at 6:31 am | Report this comment