Hillary: All the Clinton baggage without the likeability.

Click here to listen to the “You Tell Me” segment broadcast on Newstalk 600 KTBB Friday, Nov. 9, 2007

This past week, for the first time, Hillary Clinton’s carefully controlled, highly scripted, enormously disciplined political mechanism hiccupped. At the Democratic presidential candidates debate in Philadelphia, Tim Russert asked her for her stand on the decision by New York governor Eliot Spitzer to issue driver licenses to illegal aliens.

Here is what she said. Click here.

For once, I agree with Obama and Edwards. Click here.

For a whole list of reasons having to do with her far left base, Hillary cannot afford to answer the question and she lacks the skills of her husband to make the question go away.

Here’s how Bill might have handled it. Click here.

As we learned in eight years of his administration, Bill Clinton is fatally flawed. He lacks a moral compass. He is astonishingly self-centered. He is given to sociopathic behavior. He is a user of people. He will ruthlessly destroy an enemy. He seeks power for the sake of power and will bend his principles into any shape necessary to get what he wants.

How is Hillary different?

The answer is, she’s not.

Except for the fact that she is not very likeable. She has none of the natural gifts of her husband. I cannot detect a molecule of natural charm.

At the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004 I saw Hillary in an unguarded moment talking to an aide. I felt sorry for the aide. The way she talked to that young woman was shameful.

But aside from her nastier temperament, she has the same instincts as Bill. She will say whatever she has to say or dissemble when she has to dissemble in order to advance her ambitions.

Current polls say she has a slightly better than fifty-fifty chance of becoming the next president.

This is not about politics for me. For right now it’s not about conservative vs. liberal, higher taxes or lower taxes, universal health care or market-driven health care or any other ideology.

It’s about the reality of the Clintons as people. Do we really believe that the Clintons have changed in eight years since they last resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

If you believe they have changed, what is your basis for that belief? It can’t be Hillary’s answer to Tim Russert’s question. That was pure Clinton evasion of a politically touchy question – minus the skill and charm.

If you believe the Clintons are the Clintons, are we ready for that circus to come back to town? Even if you are a committed liberal Democrat, are you ready for a fresh round of Travelegates and Whitewaters and Chinese fundraisers and rental of the Lincoln bedroom? Are you ready for the backwash of lawsuits and allegations and perpetual controversy that inevitably follows this couple?

The American form of government is sufficiently brilliant in its design as to survive the policy failures of one or another presidential administration. If Hillary is elected, I’m sure the republic will press on.

But for my money, even if I agreed with their politics, I’m certain that I can’t stand the thought of the Clinton dramas back on the national stage.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Paul Gleiser

Paul L. Gleiser is president of ATW Media, LLC, licensee of radio stations KTBB 97.5 FM/AM600, 92.1 The TEAM FM in Tyler-Longview, Texas.

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. bryan says:

    I am an independent voter. No politician is perfect. No politician comes without undesirable qualities. However, there is no maxim, law, or reasoned position stating that an individual, personally distasteful, cannot be an effective executive. How many bosses are disliked, but get the job done? We are not being asked to have dinner with these people, but to allow them to run the country. Notice I use the term allow rather than trust. This is because the concept of trust and government are two concepts that I do not mix.
    In reference to the Clinton’s, I would be more than happy to have the Clinton’s back in the White House. I have spoken with many people about President Clinton and Senator Clinton. Most people who dislike either or both base their opinion on wholly personal issues. Some point to the personal scandal the caused the impeachment of President Clinton. Your article mentions travelgate and Whitewater. Others deride Senator Clinton for her marriage to President Clinton, her shrill voice, and even her laugh. Your own article speaks of a lack of charm and nasty temperament. Absent from all of this is any consideration what-so-ever about law, policy, international diplomacy, or any other instance that actually affects how the country is run.
    I agree that it is a very legitimate position to not like the Clinton’s personally. But, most people substitute this dislike for any articulate reason to oppose their positions in government. I would go so far as to say that most people who dislike the Clinton’s know very little about what they have actually done in the government. Instead they have been focused on marital infidelity, an investigation into a failed land deal, or some other specious, largely unsupported accusation. Most people do not even know that the Clinton’s were exonerated of any wrongdoing in the Whitewater affair.
    Finally, while President Clinton was in office, there was a budget surplus, additional funding for police, cuts in government spending, lower taxes on the middle class, Welfare reform, international respect, the creation of Americorp, a minimum wage hike, the family and medical leave act, and the violent crime control and law enforcement act. Compare that to the actual record of President Bush. The reasons noted above that most people dislike the Clinton’s are frankly puerile and childish in comparison to actual action and policy.
    So, yes I would be just fine with the Clinton’s.

  2. Scott says:

    My number one reason among many for opposing Hillary Clinton is her socialist ideology. There is
    no intellectual argument none ZERO when it comes
    to market based vs socialist economics. Smartest
    woman in America and a socialist I don\’t think so.

  3. Brian Eggerman says:

    I\’m with you. Who in their right mind wants to return to the days of 79 cents a gallon gasoline, economic prosperity across the spectrum instead of just the wealthy elite, legitimate military interventions that are relatively bloodless and 100% successful? A return to this would be a return to what America should really stand for. Where\’s the obscene profit margin in that.
    If you really don\’t want a return to the scandal ridden days of the Clinton administration, then stop manufacturing the scandals. One thing that whitewater, travelgate, chinagate, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, the sinking of the Titanic, and every other scandal you and your ilk tried to pin on Clinton is that they all turned out to be nothing. In eight years, the Clinton administration had one felony conviction among its staffers. Compare this to Reagan, who had 29. Yet you still make shrill whining noises about Clinton being corrupt. Tiny minds are fooled. People capable of rational thought are not. Which group represents America?
    If Hillary Clinton does win the election over the bushel of Bush clones the republicans are currently offering, she will inherit the biggest mess left by an administration in our nation\’s history. Can we stand another Clinton presidency is not the burning question. The question should be can we survive one more year of Bush.

  4. Tony says:

    Clintons have been scandal ridden since Arkansas. They have no morals. No, dont think I want them anywhere near the Whitehouse again. Propaganda just wont cut it anymore. The New Media will see the Truth gets out. Thanks for this space and opportunity to speak out Mr Gleiser.

  5. Scott says:

    Brian, if the Clinton\’s or any of the environmental
    extremist in the Democrat party are going to give us .79 gasoline they will need to do a complete one eighty on energy policy. If gasoline does hit
    four dollars like some are predicting a large portion of the blame will rest squarely on the shoulders of the anti growth anti oil anti coal
    anti nuke anti business and in some cases anti American RED on the inside green on the outside
    socialist Democrat party.
    What national interest was served in Bosnia?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *