2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary lost me tonight for forever.
Last edited Thu Mar 10, 2016, 06:40 AM - Edit history (1)
My husband and Obama......
.really?
And then there was....
If it sounds to good to be true.....
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)---
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)Hillary was at her worst last night, IMHO.
Did you not watch the debate?
jcgoldie
(11,627 posts)...she isn't. I really don't see how that's controversial. Watch the 3 of them speak and it's pretty evident.
7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 10, 2016, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)
It was OK with you?
Yes, it's not about being a "natural" politician. It is the ability to speak well and I think it is usually called charisma. She is lacking.
Oh wait, there is the HONESTY factor. That is the one!!
That is why I choked on "...if it sounds too good to be true...." she should know!!
jcgoldie
(11,627 posts)Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama... a statement which holds true for 99% of Americans I'd guess. And for that your hyperbolic statement that she lost your vote "forever"... given the alternatives in November that's ridiculous.
H2O Man
(73,528 posts)I think that everyone could agree that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are gifted speakers. They have an ease in communicating with the public that very few other politicians have. Hillary clearly does not have that gift. (I can say, based upon watching her on television for years, and having met her twice, that she is really good in speaking with small groups -- as opposed to her speaking to larger groups.)
But being a politician is more, much more, than public speaking. Marco Rubio, for example, can deliver lines smoothly in front of a group. But is he really a politician? Or more of a cheap con man?
For a better example, let's take the Kennedy brothers. Both John and Ted are remembered as powerful public speakers. For Ted, it came naturally. John had to work very hard to become as good as he was -- and he was as good as any president we've ever had.
Robert Kennedy, on the other hand, was never a good public speaker. He definitely worked to improve his skills. Yet, while he did deliver a couple of great speeches -- June 6, 1966 in South Africa, and April 4, 1968, following MLK's assassination -- it was the content, and his energy, that made them memorable.
Still, Robert was a natural politician. Just not a natural, at ease public speaker.
starroute
(12,977 posts)The crucial context is that she pulled out the not-a-natural-politician line -- which she's used before -- as a response to being asked why people might find her untrustworthy.
It was the disconnect that was so jarring. Not having the charisma of a Bill Clinton or a Barack Obama might make a politician seem clumsy or boring or out of touch onstage. But it's not clear that it could cause them to appear untrustworthy. So this had very much the appearance of Clinton pulling out a canned response in order to divert attention from the actual question.
But it also played into Clinton's victim narrative. Just as with her woman-as-ultimate-outsider line, it amounted to saying, "I haven't done anything wrong. I just don't have the advantages that some other people enjoy. And why is everybody always picking on me?"
So it's certainly not false to say that Hillary isn't a natural politician. But it didn't answer the question and it came across as a call for pity.
DavidDvorkin
(19,473 posts)7wo7rees
(5,128 posts)now i don't know what to do.
Offended and offput.
DavidDvorkin
(19,473 posts)I dislike Sanders more all the time, but I'll vote for him over any Republican, without hesitation.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)I hear he's got crossover appeal.
Doremus
(7,261 posts)I won't vote for:
1) a repuke
2) status quo, aka Hillary
I've voted for the 'lesser of 2 evils' for too long. I have my candidate and if his name isn't on my ballot in November I'll write it there, myself.