Michael Savage Is Wrong On Analysis Of Hillary And French Election
3 comments May 8th, 2007
Radio talk show commentator Michael Savage is often insighful and always interesting. However, I have to disagree with him in his claim last night that the defeat of the female candidate for President of France in the recent election, Ségolène Royal, means that Hillary Clinton is also fated for decline. In my estimation, the defeat of Royal has the opposite message; Hillary Clinton is actually more formidable.
Recent history offers many examples demonstrating that strong female candidates who project strength are electable. One has only to look at Margaret Thatcher and, much more recently, Angela Merkel, Germany’s first female chancellor. Unlike these strong women, Ms. Royal came across as a weak and naive candidate, facing a srong law-and-order opponent, Nicholas Sarkozy. In reality, Hillary Clinton has nothing in common with Ms. Royal, other than gender, but much in common with Sarkozy.
Like Sarkozy, Hillary Clinton has spent years preparing for her presidential run, amassing paper credentials that allow her to claim relevant “tough guy” experience. For example, Mr. Sarkozy saw to it that he had served as France’s Interior Minister, which gave him authority over the police. Hillary Clinton, once elected to the Senate, saw to it that she was appointed to the powerful Armed Services Committee. There are other examples in which both of these politicians constructed strategic resumes designed for a presidential campaign.
One other observation of note. When Ms.Royal visited the United States, she sought a meeting with America’s most powerful woman politician. No dice.There was not a snowball’s chance in hell that Hillary Clinton would meet with the presidential candidate of France’s socialist party. That level of political calculation and expediency is perhaps what most distinguishes Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton from Ségolène Royal . After all, for someone like Hillary, tout le monde c’est politique.
