Hillary Can Bore a Grateful Nation



Clinton supposedly comes to the presidential race – if she wants it – with two built-in constituencies: women and minorities. The former I’m not so sure about, for wherever I go and her name comes up it is the ladies who make faces usually associated with bad wine. As for minorities, Hillary is Bill and Bill is Hillary and their record, if not his rhetoric, is unmatched. She has earned her following.

But that leaves the rest of us who might seek something more in a presidential candidate than lists and caution and itsy-bitsy steps toward universal health care. We want, yes, vision, leadership – a little music, please, maestro! We want rhetoric that soars, poetry that compels and, every once in a while a phrase that pumps the heart and – jackpot! – draws a tear. We rarely hear that sort of thing from Hillary Clinton. Instead, she has played Mrs. Cool to her husband’s Mr. Hot. The essential theatricality of politics is not in here – not yet, anyway.

The Council on Foreign Relations is not, I grant you, a stadium full of partisans. It calls for a certain understated style. Even so, Clinton managed to bore the likes of stock brokers, money managers, corporate lawyers and others who you might think are already inured to boredom. Here and there I even saw people fighting sleep and I noticed one chap who had succumbed and was surely dreaming of IPOs or whatever fantasies occur to the very rich. Suffice it to say, though, that this was her audience – predisposed to like her, already respecting her. She gave them nothing.

I hope this is the dynamic candidate the Democratic Party puts forward in 2008. :slight_smile:


Though I’m an Independent, I hope they dont. I want the Dems to defeat the GOP and Hillary is too decisive. Besides, Obama, if he runs will bring to the table what that article says she would, namely, women and minorities.


I’m not so sure about Obama either…from what I’ve read (from Democrat sources, not Republicans) is that he is pretty non-committed on a lot of issues. While some see this as good (“a uniter not a divider” in Bush’s pre-election parlance), it doesn’t usually hold up to scrutiny. The electorate prefers to know that a candidate has strong beliefs and principles.

Two years is plenty of time for Clinton or Obama to fine-tune their election personas…just hope they don’t hire the same person Al Gore did. :wink:

As a Republican, neither of them change, because I think they are both defeatable. On the other hand, it depends on who we run…we have some of the same issues.


I would like to see the best qualified person win the election in 08’. I would like to see a candidate who wants less Government, not more. Lower taxes, the government already mismanages enough of it. I would like to see someone who can unite and not divide.

Hillary falls short.


I agree about Obama. I went to website where you can see how he voted and I was amazed at all the no votes he took part (or didnt) in. But that doesnt change the fact he will still be looked at as more favorable than HC. And he cant possibly go anoter two years playing wishy washy on issues. Plus, he’s currently in a scandal of his own property dealings with a convicted person. :smiley:

But people have short term memories and wont recall in 2 years


How Catholic of you!


What…telling it like it is which is news or the smiley? Either way, if he’s corrupt as well, I am glad people will find out hence the smiley. Doesnt bother me at all as a Catholic, but thanks for judging me. :rolleyes:


Thread Closed

Reason: This topic is pretty uncharitable.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.