|
Obama has the ability to motivate and inspire people, and draw in supporters from outside the traditional demographics of the party: young people, independents, even disillusioned Republicans. He speaks boldly, and raises people's spirits to meet the challenges of getting out of the hole we're in.
Hillary is bland. She has little in terms of either inspirational spark or oratorical talent. In this way, she's very similar to Kerry and Gore: I'm certain all of them are good people, but they lack a sense of leadership and uplifting visceral appeal.
Nominating Hillary would be, in effect, taking the same approach as the last two elections: insisting that people should respond solely to policy, and that leadership and personality shouldn't play a role in selecting a president. While I can understand why some people would see it that way, that's not how it works in the real world. In reality, people want that vital spark in their leaders, that charisma which says that we can have something more than business as usual. That's why we remember Jefferson, and Roosevelt, and Kennedy, more than Madison, and Wilson, and Johnson.
We have the issues on our side, and the only reason that we lost the White House in the first place is because we forgot that people want a president who is a leader, not just a policy wonk. Somebody who inspires, not just explains.
|