Does Hillary Clinton Act Presidential?
2 comments June 5th, 2007
The answer to the above question,to paraphrase Bill Clinton, all depends on what you mean by the word “act.” In the wake of the New Hampshire Democratic presidential candidates debate, the spin being spun by Hillaryland is that Hillary Rodham Clinton “acted presidential,” that somehow she was above the fray.
In a presidential contest largely determined by image, Hillary Clinton perhaps meets that definition. But then, there are others who may be far more qualified, based on this Clintonian rationale. For example, retired Republican Senator Fred Thompson will probably enter the presidential race this summer. He currently works as a professional actor, and has even played the role of a president dealing with a nuclear crisis in the film, “Last Best Chance.” So, if Hillary Clinton maintains we should choose the president who best “acts presidential,” Fred Thompson’s credentials are far more impressive than those of Hillary Clinton.
Ah, but she didn’t really mean acting, she meant substance, so you pro-Hillary people now say. Alright, but wait a minute. If we go by substance, Hillary Clinton lacks even a fraction of the tested experience in the areas of foreign policy, economic management and geopolitical strategy that many of her rivals possess. Hillary has more foreign policy depth than Joe Biden, who chairs the foreigh relations committee? Come on, get serious.
Well, let’s cross off substance and acting. So, what’s left? The same surname as a recent president? Yes, that worked well for George W. Bush, so that must be the best way to pick a president. Based on how well that formula has benefited America, Hillary Clinton no doubt deserves to win by a landslide.Just hope the country isn’t buried in the process.
