Home > Politics > Political Punch

Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Hillaryis44 | Main | Edwards takes on Coulter »

Hillary and the Authenticity Question

June 26, 2007 10:53 AM

One of the hurdles Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, faces in her run for the White House may come from her public speaking style. To some, the junior senator from New York can seem in speeches to be warm, compelling, amusing, human -- the way her friends and supports say she is in private. But I've also heard many Democrats complain that she can also seem cold, hard, and unpleasant. And they fear nominating a candidate like that.

Nm_clinton_070626_bl

I'm convinced, completely unscientifically, that there is an American Idol factor when it comes to elections, beyond substance, beyond positions on issues, in which Americans ask themselves: Who do I want to listen to for the next four years?

It's tough to quantify such an X factor, but I do think it's there.

During the first debate between then-Gov. George W. Bush and then-VP Al Gore, that the Democrat seemed hectoring and scolding. While Bush certainly had his own issues, and ultimately Gore did win the popular vote, at a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity some might argue (Bill Clinton, for instance), that Gore should have won that election in a cakewalk.

While there are ever so many reasons why Gore didn't end up sending a U-Haul to Pennsylvania Avenue (CLICK HERE FOR SOME OF THEM), many Democratic officials have told me that they think, in the guts of some voters, there may have been a reluctance to watch him on their TVs for four years.

Now, whether Hillary Clinton has this issue is an open question. But I bring you these blog postings about an exchange that raises the issue

(Following the lead of master-blogger Andrew Sullivan LINK, no Hillary fan, I should say.)

It starts with the website "Wilshire and Hollywood" (LINK) where Variety managing editor Ted Johnson reports on a fundraiser at the home of Tinseltown's Roland Emmerich, auteur of Independence Day, Godzilla, and The Day After Tomorrow.

Writes Johnson: "Clinton called on a girl in the seventh grade, who asked her about breaking through glass ceilings. She then answered more questions, including one about health care, before calling on one man who suggested that her answers were a bit too scripted. Some donors booed the man. Looking a little miffed, Clinton responded to the so-called 'authenticity question.' I don't have the direct quote, but Clinton apparently pointed to the fact that she has been giving many speeches a day --- why doesn't he try doing that? And she drew cheers when she ended the response with,  'And that wasn't a canned answer.'"

At Huffington Post, the booed man -- playwright and screenwriter Jon Robin Baitz -- responds (LINK):
         

From the Wilshire & Washington blog today, in a piece about a fundraiser for Senator Clinton at the Hollywood Hills home of Roland Emmerich held last Friday evening:

"I am the man who suggested that the senator's answer to a single question felt -- well, sorry -- a little bit like a set-up. In retrospect, I was not particularly polite, though I didn't set out to be rude, and did preface my inquiry with a declaration of hope that she becomes the next president, which I repeated even through the smattering of boos and gasps that were directed my way. (Maybe in Manhattan, the response would have been different.) And moreover, I had been pleasantly surprised and impressed by Ms. Clinton's discourse until the moment described above. She spoke about the things I care most about - health care, children's welfare, and our credibility with the rest of the world. She talked intelligently on Iraq. She talked of sexual equality, which needed to be addressed in a heavily gay crowd. She was inspiring on a number of points, and felt human and empathetic even. So, when she called on the charming young lady in the pretty dress to her left, and it all turned into rote, I sighed, deflated, and looked around, and saw a few people rolling their eyes at the obviousness of the moment, and I quietly got angrier than anyone else gathered beside the gorgeous Hollywood pool."

Baitz says that his "question was spiked away easily by the candidate. I had set up a volleyball serve and she'd spiked it back hard and glib. I did her more good than the lovely young girl with the glass ceiling thing. People applauded her and glared at me. The young lady in charge of the mike hissed at me, and a couple I knew accused me of being cynical AND naive at the same time. (True, that.)"

His larger point was that he "felt gypped for a moment by her, at the moment when I felt let down (again!), something snapped. And when I bemoaned it, more out of worry -- if you're fake here, where the hell will you be real? -- she bristled at me. And when her answer to my criticism was merely, 'You try delivering twelve of these a week,' I knew that she bristled simply because she knows how vulnerable she is when it comes to being over-rehearsed. Because she knows that there has been a kind of life-long coarsening that we all write off as collateral damage to being in the business of elections for as long as she has. I wanted to say, 'your answer wasn't canned but it sure wasn't honest'...

"But by then, the microphone was already being wrenched away from me by a fleshy, sunburnt functionary of the night, which prevented me from really losing my cool and saying, 'Lady, that's the gig, that's the gig, I don't care how HARD it is -- and if you can't give a consistent, spontaneous, genuine answer to someone who is essentially on your side, than how are you gonna wow them where they're not inclined to give you the time of day...?' …

"I was looking for the authentic, the real, and the righteous. And all I saw was the peeved. I gave as much money as I could to the thing. I suppose if this election plays out the way I think it may, she could get my vote. But I don't think she'll ever make my heart sing. Is such a thing even possible now?"

What do you think?

-- jpt

June 26, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (18)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/19612146

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hillary and the Authenticity Question:

User Comments

I agree its a problem for her. She isn't a natural speaker, like her husband. And at times she compensates in awkward ways, like the phony southern drawl. But its early enough to not be a major problem. She has time to get her bearings. A lot of candidates are less than polished at this point - remember she really isn't very experienced at this, which is a plus for her, because it means she has room to improve. That said, I think Obama is the nominee, but she has the resources and name recognition to make it a fight.

Posted by: dutch1314 | Jul 1, 2007 12:25:07 PM

JADF - maybe you misunderstood, conservatives did not go out and vote, it is not that they went and voted for libs. They cleaned house (pardon the pun)

Turnout was very low even for midterm elections.. Now in 2004 turnout hit record numbers and Bush won with a record number.

Can anyone answer this which voice is really hillary's???

Posted by: spock | Jun 27, 2007 10:23:45 PM

Wow, spock if you haven't noticed: voting turnout is ALWAYS LOW. That's the problem with this nation. Also, we're really screwed up if a likability factor comes into play. I agree with cordelia525, going off of that is how we vote for people like Bush TWICE.

Posted by: JADF | Jun 27, 2007 4:30:25 PM

After 8 years of a president handling himself like a political William Hung, I think its time we started requiring a little more rehearsal out of our leaders!! Lets elect someone with a plan, lets elect someone who has thought ahead!

Your belief that a candidate needs to have an 'American Idol X factor' is more harmful to our political dialogue than most. You have a soap box Mr. Tapper. Use it wisely.

Posted by: thedevilyoudont | Jun 27, 2007 11:01:42 AM

Thank you so much for the extensive quotation. As the speaker knew, it's rare to get genuine conversation from a political candidate. It's just as rare to get extensive reasoning and argumentation on a political blog, alas.

Posted by: Fabio Escobar | Jun 27, 2007 6:57:43 AM

If you are raised wealthy can you really know what all people feel and think?

Posted by: willow | Jun 27, 2007 6:47:03 AM

Al Gore did not lose the presidency it was stolen from him by the Bush Nazis. And please don`t give me this crap about socalled authenticity. I do not know Hillary -I will never know her.The media said that the Bush was authentic and Al Gore was not this such a lot of crap.

Posted by: Reba shimansky | Jun 27, 2007 3:06:25 AM

Why does ABC Radio's Sean Hannity call his 3 hour daily show the "Stop Hillary Express"? Why did he tell Radio Ink that his show exists to stop Hillary from being elected President? Why does the typical ABC radio station broadcast Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Hannity and local hosts, running 8-12 hours a day of prime-time Republican propaganda? The public owns the airwaves, not ABC or the GOP. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Posted by: Lucille Causey | Jun 27, 2007 2:36:47 AM

hillary is inauthentic...polarizing...american idol?...huff po...variety....jeeze tapper its not even wednsday yet, is thinking about the important issues already too hard for you this week?...why dont we just turn everything over to the gabbers and the gossips, repeating silly words and pretending that they have great resonance and import - if we do, youll fit right in boyo, if the news department at mtv doesnt get you back first!!

Posted by: tim howe | Jun 26, 2007 11:11:09 PM

Alexander Hamilton was not well liked by the masses...Jefferson was loved. Popularity is still a vital component of any Presidential candidacy and Ms. Clinton is loved and hated, hated and loved, depending on the group involved, (i.e) poor blacks, young (non college) educated women, versus (non college) educated white men etc. That's precisely why she can't get elected. She divides America when we need to unite America. She will never achieve more than 50% nationawide approval even after her coronation upon winning the nomination.

Posted by: David Erlichman | Jun 26, 2007 10:58:42 PM

Typically insightful, Spock.

Posted by: DKNY | Jun 26, 2007 5:34:30 PM

cordelia525 - please keep believing that!!! Interesting thing turnout was low, why was that um because the libs did not gain votes. Also how come the libs only won in most states with libs that pushed moderate ideals and not against the war. it was because the Conxservatives cleaned house. But believe what you want too, actually your right :)

Posted by: spock | Jun 26, 2007 3:19:42 PM

2006 was a referendum on Iraq. The voters will face the same referendum in 2008 unless one of the republicans has the balls to say that Iraq was a mistake and that a change of course is advisable. This is me, not holding my breath.

Hillary's likability and/or her negative rating will not tip the scales because Americans are overwhelmingly (not evenly) fed up.

Posted by: cordelia525 | Jun 26, 2007 2:42:53 PM

cordelia525 I hope you lib supporters keep believing that 2006 was support call for you, so when it comes around in 08 and true conservatives take back control of the goverment so we keep our freedom and lower taxes you al will be shocked.

See 2006 was not a support for the libs it was the conservatives cleaning house, they wanted to get rid of republicans acting like libs so they did not vote, not that they voted for libs.

Posted by: spock | Jun 26, 2007 1:49:06 PM

A few thoughts:

1) I'm getting a crybaby vibe from this Baitz person. But that's just me.

2) 2008 is not 2000. Yes, we're still divided, insofar as we still hate each other (democrats versus republicans, liberals versus consevatives). But we don't hate each other at a 50/50 margin. If the 2006 congressional elections were any indication, the nation is no longer evenly divided. So likability or whatever you want to call it may not be as much of an issue, or at least it might not tip the scales as it did in 2000.

3) I think the key for Hillary will not be getting people to like her. Rather it will be getting people to not hate her. I understand that her negative rating is high. Which is fine if the people who view her negatively are on the far right. But if moderates recoil at the mere mention of her name, or liken her to satan, then she's got a problem.

4) Bush by most accounts is a "nice guy" - the guy you want to have a beer with. We've endured him for 8 years. Perhaps the american people now understand that the guy you want to have a beer with is not necessarily the person you want to run the country. This could work in Hillary's favor.

Posted by: cordelia525 | Jun 26, 2007 1:08:16 PM

Jake, I agree with your analysis of the "X Factor," or the candidate's personal appeal to individual voters, much the same as the infamous "Q ratings" for television and film personalities. The problem Sen. Clinton seems to have is that she isn't consistent in her personal appeal: she can appear quite charming in one event (the parody of "The Sopranos" final scenes comes to mind), while quite calculating in another.

Mr. Baitz' story reminds me of a delightful anecdote involving the late George Burns. When someone once asked him what his secret to success in show business was, he simply said "Sincerity. Once I learned how to fake that, I became successful." Perhaps Sen. Clinton needs to remember that bit of advice in her next question-and-answer session.

Posted by: chuck | Jun 26, 2007 11:43:01 AM

Everything Hillary says is scripted, period. What does being asked about a supposed glass ceiling got to do with Health care, oh that right her first thing on the list is to bankrupt America and RAISE our taxes.

Posted by: spock | Jun 26, 2007 11:37:59 AM

I wonder if Baitz has wondered whether a male candidate would ever make his "heart sing."

Posted by: DKNY | Jun 26, 2007 11:18:23 AM

Post a comment