“President Hilary Clinton? Nah I don’t think so!”
Me
The Next Democratic Nominee
By: Joe Leonardi
Not a single primary has been held, not a single vote has been cast, heck before nothing more than a presidential exploratory committee had been formed, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had been anointed the Democratic nominee and the next President of the United States. The big question is not if Senator Clinton will get her party’s nomination and eventually become President. No, the big question is why she won’t.
Straight out Hillary Rodham Clinton is not all that like-able. The most unspoken reason someone wins the presidency is like-ability. Other words such as charisma and appeal are used to make it sound more complex, more meaningful, more serious. However, the simple fact is like-ability rules the roost in electing our presidents. Ronald Reagan was our grandfather. Bill Clinton was every man, “the man from Hope”, and George W. gave the appearance that though born to privilege, he could be everyone’s best friend.
Qualifications and education are played up, but they really aren’t that important. President Harry Truman did not posses a college degree. Other than Governor, President Ronald Reagan never held any other elected office, never ran a business, he was simply a B movie actor and spokesperson. President George W. Bush’s business failures are well chronicled. The two one term presidents of my lifetime may have been the most “qualified” to hold office. Both Presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter had excellent educations, distinguished military careers and worked their way up the political ladder. Each failed in their re-elections bids because they weren’t like-able. President’s Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush all had potential scandals that should have prevented their re-elections, but they won because of the like-ability factor. President Reagan is remembered with great fondness by supporters and detractors alike. President Clinton won over the man he vanquished. And the future will tell about President George W. Bush.
Since the age of television the shallower qualities are played up. A great example is the Nixon/Kennedy debate. Those who watched it on television felt Kennedy won, those who heard it on the radio felt Nixon won. President Kennedy embraced the then new media. He was tanned, used stage make up, and though he was a man in great pain and suffered from an illness few were aware, appeared young and vibrant.
President Nixon looked, well looked like Nixon.
Back to Senator Clinton. Hillary is just not like-able. She rubs many people, including fellow Democrats, the wrong way. She went from being a Goldwater conservative to a 60’s liberal and fervent feminist. She went from single Hillary Rodham to the married Hillary Rodham, to Hillary Clinton to finally Hillary Rodham Clinton. She went from a socialist utopic idea of nationalizing one seventh of the U.S. economy to being a conservative war hawk. She was quoted as saying, “I’m not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man” to a doormat of a blatant philandering husband time and time again. She was born in Illinois resided in Arkansas and Washington D.C. but ran for the Senate in New York. She went from unflappable and undeterred to tossing her beliefs to the wayside for political expedience and popularity.
The reason Senator Clinton is not like-able is because no one knows who is the real Hillary Clinton. There is no genuine, consistent character to her. It is hard to like someone who doesn’t like him or herself. How do you like yourself if you can’t decide who you are? There are those that seek the presidency to lead and there are those that seek the presidency just to be president.
Which is Senator Clinton?
Who knows?
I would guess even she doesn’t know.
Joe Leonardi
The Independent, Conservative, Common Sense Oasis 
and you are? lordie! if you were, wouldnt you have won your lil race? i sure as heck dont fiund u likable at all…
Good point Tim. However, I didn’t run for president, and the theme of this column was presidential elections. But that’s okay I will still post your comment.
A few things about our campaign.
We only spent approx. $10,000 and pulled 28% of the vote so we were pretty happy.
When Marc Holtzman ran he spent $1.5 million and pulled 30%.
The projections from the local press was we would only get between 15-20%, I think with a little more money we might have done better, but I was out of commission for almost 6 months due to a misdiagnosed condition followed up by a serious post operative infection that kept me out of fundraising.
Who knows how things may have turned out if circumstances were different. However, I’m glad I didn’t quit, I’m glad I stayed in and I’m glad for the folks that helped and I am appreciative of those who turned out and voted for or against me, as long as they voted.
Even if you don’t like me, I respect all feed back and all opinions.
Thanks for the comment and keep up the dialogue
Joe
Joe, I tend to agree with you that isn’t likable, but I have to add that she is likable to a great many people. I know many of them.
It’s a little early to say as a point of fact that she’s unlikable. She still leads all other Democratic candidates in the polls, and while her lead is shrinking … she still leads all others in the polls.
Do a lot of people find her unlikable? Absolutely. Do a lot of people also find John Edwards and even the great Barack Obama unlikable? Absolutely.
The road to the White House is a long one. For all we know, none of the three Democratic frontrunners will even be in the race a year from now. There’s still more than enough time for others to enter the race.
Peace, brother. Happy Easter.
Joe, I tend to agree with you that Hillary isn’t likable, but I have to add that she is likable to a great many people. I know many of them.
It’s a little early to say as a point of fact that she’s unlikable. She still leads all other Democratic candidates in the polls, and while her lead is shrinking … she still leads all others in the polls.
Do a lot of people find her unlikable? Absolutely. Do a lot of people also find John Edwards and even the great Barack Obama unlikable? Absolutely.
The road to the White House is a long one. For all we know, none of the three Democratic frontrunners will even be in the race a year from now. There’s still more than enough time for others to enter the race.
Peace, brother. Happy Easter.
Hi Blue,
I understand all that, I wrote this column back in Feb. sometime and posted it in March. It really is my opinion, but I think now with the not only the money Barack has rasised, but the number of people who contributed may be telling.
Happy Easter to you,
Thanks for the Comment
and
Keep up the Dialogue
Joe
What’s wrong with keeping your own last name when you marry? I’m all for tradition but not when it is aimed at erasing one’s connection to the past. If Hillary was a woman to change her last name and hide behind her husband she wouldn’t be running for President. That she took her husband’s last name to help him in his political career, I understand. That she is now using her maiden name along with Clinton is great. It’s the compromise many women accept. That you connect a problem of knowing yourself with changing names is sexist. Get real, your ideas are lame and are disrespectful to the American voting public.
Hi Fran
Of course pull out the sexist argument. Though I mentioned her name change as one of many examples of her history you chose to focus on it. I never said she hid behind President Clinton’s name, but of course you needed to make something up to bolster your non argument. Why not tell us all what Sen. Clinton really stands for, not just what you think she stands for, but documented legislative and/or political consistency. Or is that a little too difficult because it would take insightful thought and understanding. No, it is easier to take the simpleton approach and name call and pull out the “sexist” card then to have real dialog and discussion.
Her constant name changing is a symptom of her trying to figure out what the American voting public wants and presenting it as if, she, Sen. Clinton fits that view. I personally don’t care under what name she wants to be known, but if you watch her history her name change was always, like every move she has made, for political expedience, not ideological fortitude. What is more disrespectful me pointing it out or her attempts at duping the electorate?
Thank you for the comment, even though instead of just discussing what was written you devolved into name calling rhetoric.
Joe