Two Washington Post columnists take a closer look at Hillary Clinton and try to expose her main weakness / problem. That’s where the similarities between the two columns end, however. EJ Dionne believes that Hillary’s main problem is that “she’s running out of time,” Richard Cohen argues that it is that she “represents the status quo.”
Obama, on the other hand, has time on his side: he’s slowly but surely closing the gap in most polls with Hillary. More: Obama represents change. What kind of change isn’t exactly clear, but in elections change in itself is important.
I tend to agree with both, although it has to be pointed out that change in itself isn’t, in my relatively conservative opinion, necessarily good. All too often the plebs vote for change, any change, doesn’t matter what kind of change exactly. Change = good, thus the candidate representing change has a good shot at winning elections.
That seems to be how too many people think.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Hillary has an image and a prerogative – she can’t change it easily even when she can see that she has to. Plus, she is just too contrite and used to her usual stride, locked in the establishment and here position in some vague center.
Obama can be unexpected, unpredictable and flexible because that is where he is in his career, and he is an independent thinker who is loved for precisely that reason.
Hillary only has the powerful sense of "usual" going for her – apart from that Obama is pretty much equal on all other factors that could go for her. Her changing just wouldn’t do much, and it would be risky.