On the one hand, I think she would have made a very good, if not great, president: highly intelligent and hard-working with a more impressive command of policy than probably anyone else out there. (Kind of like the opposite of You-Know-Who.)
And then, on the other, I just can't believe what a horrible politician she is. I mean, come on, first she loses the Democratic nomination to a black freshman senator with the middle name Hussein and a last name that rhymes with Osama, and then to the least-qualified and most unfit candidate for president ever. And she was the overwhelming favorite in both. Sheesh! (Makes me sympathize a little with this guy.)
A piece in New York Magazine also hints at a fatal flaw:
Her team recalled the persistent feeling of being in uncharted territory. As McIntosh says, “Should she have showed more emotion? I don’t know. We don’t know whether women who show less emotion get to be the president. Should she have been less hawkish? I don’t know. We don’t know if we can elect a pacifist woman president. We can’t point to where she diverges from a path that other women have taken because she was charting that path, and that might fuck with your analytics a bit, as it turns out.”
Double sheesh! Should we do this? Should we do that? And how does the fact that she's a woman impact all of it? Oy!
Just run as yourself. That's how Bernie and Barack and What's-His-Name all ran and look at how well they did.
Face it: some people are just not good at running for president: Al Gore, Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton. Deal with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment