Booman writes:
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.
Hillary has worked hard to project an image of toughness, but she hasn't mastered it at all, the art of creating trust. . . . [S]he isn't really all that tough and, more importantly, she isn't trustworthy. She doesn't project trustworthiness. . . .
What nonsense. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is perceived as tough. Indeed, that is one thing the “castrating bitch” GOP meme has accomplished. But she has been attacked as untrustworthy. The funny thing is Booman notes that no Dem GE Presidential candidate seems to have figured out how to be viewed as trustworthy. But he thinks Clinton is the problem. What myopia! Bob Somerby has covered this extensively and it is amazing that Booman does not seem to know about it:
P]onder this statement by the New York Post’s Charlie Hurt. The boys were discussing Saint Rudy:
HURT (11/6/07): You know, because [Giuliani] is such a gun-slinger, and because he is such a straight-talker, people believe him . . .Giuliani’s endless, howling misstatements are becoming the stuff of legend—but to Hurt, he’s still a “straight-talker.” But then, Time’s Mike Allen had stated this view roughly one minute before:
ALLEN: . . . It turns out they like his gun-slinging, straight-shooting swagger, that he comes across—he will answer a question, he will say, “No way, no how.” People like that.
To Allen, he’s a “straight-shooter.” . . .
All week, Clinton’s “evasiveness” and “double-talk” have been trashed on Hardball—like Gore’s lies and Kerry’s flip-flops before her. But Giuliani is still a “straight-talker!” There is absolutely nothing on earth that will keep these lads from their Group Tales.
Apparently, Booman knows nothing of this. And let me be clear about something, there are no straight talking pols. Never have been, never will be. Not George Washington. Not Abraham Lincoln. Not FDR. My gawd, are we so far gone in our naivete about this? Don't believe me. Well, watch this:
We need to stop putting these folks on pedestals. And understand that pols are vessels for political interests. Best fight for your own political views to be adopted by the pols you can choose from. For pols, it's hard to be a saint in the city.
22 comments
Skip to comment form
defined as “a person who gives opinions in an authoritative manner“…
iow, the people who say they’re believing/trusting a pol arent even exactly trustworthy themselves (‘cept YOU, of course 😉 ). theyre using positive adjectives to sell a candidate….it’s no more ‘truth’ than what the politicians are saying.
i mean, how many people who promote the bush agenda in the media do we think actually BELIEVE it? i think that’s a very small number
the Romantics singing “What I Like About You”.
I got all warm and fuzzy right then and thought about you. Then I thought about how wonderful and HONEST Edwards is 😉
Wailing on Danby and now wailing on Booman? Are we doing low traffic extended weekend WWF smackdown ;)?
not even dennis???
okay, the overnight flipflop on abortion was… well… he suddenly saw the light!
but… but…
dennis?????
From my diary In Praise of Our Congressional Democrats!
People seem to buy a myth and stick to it, like the Giuliani myth in your essay. It doesn’t matter how much it is debunked, because people WANT the myth.
The only destruction of a myth I can think of recently is McCain.
And we can’t get out.
Because we hate her so much, baby…
I think the Booman knows all that you state above very well.
I think he doesn’t like Hillary, and so he’s ready to believe anything he hears to confirm the dislike.
Even old tired worn out media myths about how you can never trust the Democrat.
I see it often actually. Same with last time and the waffling Kerry comments. It was bad enough to constantly hear it from our opponents and the refs. But you would also always hear it from our side.
They do it because it works. On us too.
Thus, the trap. And we can’t get out.
speak locally and it struck me how much like a wrestling match the campaigns were, replete with hokey music up on entering the ring. Pols are vessels for political interests and always have been but as these powerful interests diverge more and more from those of the people, and the line between the parties blur, do we not need to try to choose the best vessel for our interests? The candidates with their Polls, pundits, marketeers, managers, and sponsors all play to the lowest common denominators and measure and track our stupidity.
Your essay almost made me feel like giving up my favorite pastime, Hillary bashing. Participating in this political ‘reality’ requires that I abandon my anarchistic tendencies and continue to roll the stone up the hill, all the while knowing the futility of any expectation other then the political fiction we live in. The decks are stacked towards the worst choice always. Hillary is on every level the worst, not because of anything personal but because her vessel is full of the most poison.