# Democrats: Please Don Not Nominate Hillary!! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 13, 2007, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389 "2007-08-13T00:50:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/121 "2007-08-14T14:36:32Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] The right, by it’s behavior has created arguments against itself much better than anything I could ever say. I’m not going to convince a right winger of anything, because he or she is either beyond reason or morally corrupt, or they wouldn’t **be** right wing. [/quote] In other words, the answer is that you have never changed anyone’s mind. Your tactics of smears and insults don’t work. > [@](#): > > In **your** opinion. In mine it’s true. Since when has the right done anything worthwhile ? When has it ever not been on the wrong side ? It’s never been the right that’s stood for women’s rights, racial equality, children’s rights, protecting the environment, justice for the poor, the helpless, aid for the sick, animal rights, or anything positive whatsoever that I can think of. I think you should actually accomplish your tasks before blubbering about what a great job you’ve done. [Women’s rights and racial equality](http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/05/07/inequality_among_women_explored/)? White females earn 73 cents for every dollar earned by a white male, according to a study released last month by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research in Washington, D.C. By contrast, Asian women earn 68 cents, African-American women, 64 cents, Native American women, 58 cents, and Latina women earn 51 cents per dollar. [Children’s rights](http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/frmwrkr/)? Children come to agriculture at varying ages. Reports of children as young as four or five working alongside their parents are not uncommon. Full time agricultural work, whether during school vacations and weekends or year-round, usually begins in early adolescence. The majority of workers interviewed for this report began working in the fields between the ages of thirteen and fifteen. A recent California study also reported thirteen to fifteen as the most common ages at which children begin agricultural work, and a Florida study found most young farmworkers began working by the age of fourteen. Farm work is low-paid, exhausting, stigmatized, and often dangerous. Agricultural workers labor under extreme weather conditions, from pre-dawn cold to intense desert heat, where temperatures are commonly well above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Their work is physically demanding, requiring sustained strength, endurance, and coordination. Twelve-hour days are routine, as are six and seven-day work weeks. During peak harvesting seasons, children may work fourteen, sixteen, or even eighteen hours a day, seven days a week. Whether paid by the hour or on the basis of piece-rates, they are not paid overtime wages-the law does not require it. [Protecting the environment](http://www.publicintegrity.org/Superfund/report.aspx?aid=849)? At least 114 of the [Superfund] sites could pose immediate health hazards for people living nearby, according to the EPA. The agency has determined that the risk of human exposure to dangerous contaminants at those sites is not under control or that contaminated groundwater could be migrating off-site… The federal government tops the list, linked to 225 sites, according to EPA records. It also has been fined and penalized in connection with Superfund sites at least 18 times totaling more than $1.8 million, according to a database of fines maintained by the EPA. [The helpless](http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/481800)? Over 7% of persons living in the United States have been homeless (defined as sleeping in shelters, the street, abandoned buildings, cars, or bus and train stations) at some point in their lives. Homelessness rates have increased over each of the past 2 decades. An estimated 2.5 to 3.5 million people now experience homelessness each year. Approximately half are families with children, the fastest-growing segment of the homeless population. In 1 study, youth had a 1-year rate of homelessness of at least 1 night of 7.6%. [Aid for the sick](http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0811-05.htm)? Among the 260 people we surveyed for this annual report card of community health indicators, nearly 80 percent have chronic diseases such as high blood pressure, arthritis and asthma. More than half have chronic psychiatric problems, mostly depression. Yet 54 percent have overdue medical bills, and the cost of care frequently prevents them from getting help. Forty percent of those who lacked health insurance said they stopped taking medications or going to the doctor as a result. With poor health and poor credit, they can do little to improve their lives. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/122 "2007-08-14T14:41:06Z")
[QUOTE=acsenray] “Character,” like “values,” is one of those wonderful amorphus concepts that is impossible to pin down with a tangible definition, but that everyone will sign on to. [/QUOTE] Yeah, “life” [is another such term](http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_shostak_020829.html). But just because we can’t define it precisely doesn’t mean we should condone killing people. The way I see it is simple: it takes intelligence to figure out how to feed the world’s hungry; it takes character to make sure they get fed. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/123 "2007-08-14T14:54:44Z")
> [@](#): > > But Bush was not a popular incumbent in 2004. His approval rating had dipped below 50% and stayed there all year. I remember how many of my fellow Democrats were prematurely crowing about how they were going to beat him, just as they are prematurely crowing now about 2008. You’re right–I misremembered when he dropped under 50%. But for some reason, Bush was _perceived_ as popular until 2005, when Bush’s defeat on social security and his ineptitude in the face of Katrina gave the Democrats and the press the opening to tear him up. There’s no question that both Bush’s popularity and the perception of his popularity have changed in big ways since 2004. > [@](#): > > The ineptitude of the Democrats at picking electable candidates was never more in evidence than in 2004. A weakened Bush was ripe for the picking, and the Democrats simply blew it. Kerry was an absolute stiff, and I never understood what people were talking about when they called him “electable.” He never looked that way to me. Dean would have been a better choice. Much more loose and down-to-earth. Edwards would have been a better choice. In an alternate universe people are wondering why the Dems nominated the sleazy elitist trial lawyer with one term in the Senate. In another, they want to know why they picked the crazy abrasive New England hyperliberal. They wonder why we didn’t go with the mature soft-spoken war hero and lifelong public servant. You can make anyone look unelectable. (For the record, I think Dean or Edwards would have been better nominees, and either might have won, but it’s hard to say now.) > [@](#): > > It’s become popular wisdom among Democrats that Kerry lost because he didn’t respond to attack ads, but he was flailing from day one. He was a long-winded gas bag with an annoying elitist air about him and no charm whatsoever. No amount of advertising could change that. Don’t forget that Kerry _just barely lost_. And that not responding to the attack ads was only one of many campaign missteps he took. A slightly better campaign could have put Kerry in the White House, and fighting back against the Swift Boaters instead of ignoring them might have been enough. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/124 "2007-08-14T15:05:06Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Yeah, “life” [is another such term](http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_shostak_020829.html). But just because we can’t define it precisely doesn’t mean we should condone killing people. [/quote] What exactly are you talking about here? I think we all agree that we would prefer political leaders who haven’t committed murder. That doesn’t seem at all amorphous to me. Are you suggesting that the Democrats have failed to avoid nominating murderers for high office? And I’m suggesting that “character” and “values” are not only difficult to define, but they are used precisely _because_ they are difficult to define. The arena of “character” is an ideal one for a propagandist. > [@](#): > > The way I see it is simple: it takes intelligence to figure out how to feed the world’s hungry; it takes character to make sure they get fed. So “character” means “demonstration of the ability to effectuate one’s policy goals”? Okay, I can see how this might be an important trait for someone in power. But it seems to me rather confusing and misleading to label this trait as “character.” Under this definition, Lyndon Johnson had more “character” than nearly any other person who has served as president, but I rarely hear Johnson being described as a person of great character. He is usually described as an expert in wielding political power. To equate that with “character” seems to be another kind of non sequitur, or, perhaps, part of another bit of spin. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/125 "2007-08-14T15:22:23Z")
[QUOTE=DoctorJ] In an alternate universe people are wondering why the Dems nominated the sleazy elitist trial lawyer with one term in the Senate. [/quote] Hard to call the son of a small-town mill worker and a product of public schools “elitist.” 😉 > [@](#): > > In another, they want to know why they picked the crazy abrasive New England hyperliberal. Dean was in no way “hyperliberal.” In fact, the only think that arguably qualified him as such at the time was that he was the first anti-war candidate. That didn’t make him “hyperliberal,” it made him _right_, and by the time the general election rolled around, most Americans agreed with his position (leaving Kerry struggling awkwardly to explain his Iraq vote). Dean governed as a fiscally responsible moderate, and IIRC he was a card-carrying member of the NRA. The whole “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” business was nothing more than a strategy to appeal to primary voters. Dean had a governing record that would have allowed him to run back to the middle in the general election. I get the point you’re making, but disagree. Kerry just barely lost? In 2004, facing an unpopular president, a good Democratic candidate should have won in a landslide. Barely losing was in no way a moral victory. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/126 "2007-08-14T16:06:01Z")
[QUOTE=Skammer] Okay, I must have missed the news the day that Monica was revealed to be a Republican operative and the dress was a plant. I’m not saying the Pubs weren’t out to get Bill, but saying the accusations against him were a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was an insult to those of us who cared and aren’t particularly right-wing. [/QUOTE] Remember that there were a **lot** of accusations against Clinton from day one of his administration and even before he took office, most of which were tinfoil-hat material. Remember that Vince Foster thing? Whitewater? The rape charges? The adultery charge was the only one that stuck because it just happened to be the only one with a basis in reality. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/127 "2007-08-14T16:43:05Z")
[QUOTE=acsenray] So “character” means “demonstration of the ability to effectuate one’s policy goals”? [/QUOTE] I’d say you have a lot of heart, but I don’t want to confuse you. I’m looking forward to how you make this dictionary definition of “character” seem ambiguous and difficult: “qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity: It takes character to face up to a bully”. (from [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com)) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/128 "2007-08-14T17:00:52Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] I’d say you have a lot of heart, but I don’t want to confuse you. [/quote] I don’t relish giving you the opportunity to be condescending, but I don’t think I had a choice. The dictionary definition you quote is not obvious, to me, from this: > [@](#): > > it takes intelligence to figure out how to feed the world’s hungry; it takes character to make sure they get fed. I’m willing to accept either definition on your terms, but if you’re going to posit it as a basis for nominating a candidate for office, I think you bear the burden of showing concretely how such principles can be applied. > [@](#): > > I’m looking forward to how you make this dictionary definition of “character” seem ambiguous and difficult: “qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity: It takes character to face up to a bully”. (from [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com)) Fine, let’s work with this one; it’s a fine definition. What I want to know is how to bring it down to the level of concreteness such that it can be used as a criterion for voting on candidates for office. How about applying this definition to my earlier questions? (1) What are examples of the kind of information generated in the course of a political campaign that are relevant to determining the “character” (as defined above) of candidates? (2) What are examples of such information that would demonstrate that Democratic candidates, such as Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, or John Kerry are lacking in “character” (as defined above) in comparison with George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, or John McCain? My suspicion is that whatever answers are forthcoming are going to be based more on political propaganda and spin than they are on any objective evaluation of honesty, courage, or integrity. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/129 "2007-08-14T17:09:49Z")
[QUOTE=acsenray] (1) What are examples of the kind of information generated in the course of a political campaign that are relevant to determining the “character” (as defined above) of candidates? [/quote] Personally, I think Ron Paul is a good example. He has the courage and honesty to explain that the seeds of 9/11 go far beyond freedom envy, stemming from US meddling in Middle Eastern affairs decades ago. > [@](#): > > (2) What are examples of such information that would demonstrate that Democratic candidates, such as Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, or John Kerry are lacking in “character” (as defined above) in comparison with George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, or John McCain? Al Gore is another one who has shown great character. His courage and honesty in the face of (at that time) a popular groundswell of patriotic [sic] fervor was evident in [this speech](http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1361). It is, in my opinion, one of the greatest political speeches of our time. ETA: Incidentally, the reason it takes character to make sure the hungry get fed is that it requires the courage of one’s convictions. It’s easy to go around figuring that the pennies withheld from one’s paycheck have wipe out hunger. It is more daunting to work on a chow line. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/130 "2007-08-14T18:26:18Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Personally, I think Ron Paul is a good example. He has the courage and honesty to explain that the seeds of 9/11 go far beyond freedom envy, stemming from US meddling in Middle Eastern affairs decades ago. Al Gore is another one who has shown great character. His courage and honesty in the face of (at that time) a popular groundswell of patriotic [sic] fervor was evident in [this speech](http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1361). It is, in my opinion, one of the greatest political speeches of our time. [/QUOTE] So when it comes down to specifics, I can’t say that I disagree with you very much. I admire Ron Paul’s candor regarding his views, although I would hope that his actual views would result in his not getting elected. And I am a big fan of post-2000 Al Gore. However, I would continue disagree with you that it is useful to the public discourse to classify whatever virtues Paul and Gore display under an easily manipulated code-word like “character.” > [@](#): > > Incidentally, the reason it takes character to make sure the hungry get fed is that it requires the courage of one’s convictions. It’s easy to go around figuring that the pennies withheld from one’s paycheck have wipe out hunger. It is more daunting to work on a chow line. When it comes to policymakers, I want them to advocate the most efficient and comprehensive program for addressing global problems. Thus, if what’s needed is a broad-based tax-supported program to feed the hungry, then I would rather they do that. I don’t need officials moralizing about the virtue of individual sacrifice; that’s up to us to consider and act on if we wish. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2007, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/131 "2007-08-14T18:32:44Z")
[QUOTE=acsenray] However, I would continue disagree with you that it is useful to the public discourse to classify whatever virtues Paul and Gore display under an easily manipulated code-word like “character.” [/quote] Well, I’m not married to the word. Whatever term you use to mean the same thing is fine by me. > [@](#): > > When it comes to policymakers, I want them to advocate the most efficient and comprehensive program for addressing global problems. Thus, if what’s needed is a broad-based tax-supported program to feed the hungry, then I would rather they do that. I don’t need officials moralizing about the virtue of individual sacrifice; that’s up to us to consider and act on if we wish. Apparently, we’ve discovered that we agree all around. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2007, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/132 "2007-08-15T01:19:00Z")
Find a good person with a message and a plan America needs and if they aren’t elected it’s on America’s head. "In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.” -Alexis de Tocqueville ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2007, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/133 "2007-08-15T01:33:17Z")
Bah! Hyper-individualism cringes at any suggestion of collective effort and collective will. But there are problems so big that nothing else will answer. A sufficient number of army ants could bring down Godzilla, but not one damn ant at a time. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/134 "2007-08-16T03:16:50Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Bah! Hyper-individualism cringes at any suggestion of collective effort and collective will. [/QUOTE] Hyper-individualists wouldn’t make a solid cohesive society either, good thing we don’t have a lot of them in America. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/135 "2007-08-16T04:11:14Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] In other words, the answer is that you have never changed anyone’s mind. Your tactics of smears and insults don’t work. [/QUOTE] Ridicule, OTOH, can be highly effective. 😃 > [@](#): > > I think you should actually accomplish your tasks before blubbering about what a great job you’ve done. > > [Women’s rights and racial equality](http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/05/07/inequality_among_women_explored/)? … [Children’s rights](http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/frmwrkr/)?.. [Protecting the environment](http://www.publicintegrity.org/Superfund/report.aspx?aid=849)?.. [The helpless](http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/481800)?.. [Aid for the sick](http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0811-05.htm)?.. etc. etc. Both conservatives and liberals have put forward policies to address various social ills. Which method works better is an empirical question: it’s a matter of measuring dosage and response, after controlling for other effects. Lib’s links show the status quo, but they do not indicate what _change_ in welfare has occurred. Nor do they indicate the policy regimes prompting such changes, if any. Another element to consider is the share of Democrats and the share of Republicans supporting and opposing various reforms. ## I should note here that I’m taking Lib’s remark out of context. But I wanted to make my point anyway. [QUOTE=spoke-] I think my fellow Democrats are bound and determined to nominate Hillary, just as they were bound and determined to nominate Kerry. [/QUOTE] Well, polling results mean very little this early, and as I said earlier Hillary is given about 60% by the odds makers. Which is way under 100%. On your main point, how do you measure likeability? (I agree, except that I’m not sure that the beer test quite hits the mark). It’s a pretty easy choice for me this year. Clinton, Edwards, Gore, Obama and Richardson all have strong policy credentials. So I only have to choose the most electable/likeable, which so far implies Obama. I suppose Gore’s entry might complicate matters. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/136 "2007-08-16T18:32:26Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] Unfortunately for every Democrat who says only a moron would vote Republican, there’s a Republican saying only a traitor would vote Democrat. Mindless demonizing is a bipartisan problem. [/QUOTE] I’m sure that’s true. But calling them a traitor is annoying because it smacks of holier-than-thou-ism, not because they expect the traitor to vote differently after having their name besmirched 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/137 "2007-08-16T18:57:10Z")
[QUOTE=elfkin477] But calling them a traitor is annoying because it smacks of holier-than-thou-ism, not because they expect the traitor to vote differently after having their name besmirched 😉 [/QUOTE] But they do expect it, and it works. Look how the Democrats keep caving in. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/138 "2007-08-16T19:47:28Z")
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure] I should note here that I’m taking Lib’s remark out of context. But I wanted to make my point anyway. [/QUOTE] Thanks for pointing that out. Few people ever do. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2007, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/139 "2007-08-17T03:06:31Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m sure that’s true. But calling them a traitor is annoying because it smacks of holier-than-thou-ism, not because they expect the traitor to vote differently after having their name besmirched I’d say it’s arguably worse to call someone a traitor than a moron. At least the moron accusation implies the person had no choice in the matter; his flaw was inherent. A traitor accusation implies that the person made a knowing choice to do something wrong. And it could further imply that there may be penalties for making the “wrong” choice. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2007, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389/140 "2007-08-17T15:18:59Z")
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure] On your main point, how do you measure likeability? (I agree, except that I’m not sure that the beer test quite hits the mark). [/QUOTE] Well, the beer test was just a way of measuring likeability. It’s a test of how much the candidate puts you at ease. And yes, it’s hard to measure or lay parameters for likeability. In that way it is similar to “obscenity” as described by Justice Stewart: “I know it when I see it.” With Hillary, what strikes me about her is that her smiles seem out of place. Maybe it’s just the pattern of lines in her face, or the tone of her voice, but something tells me that in her private life, smiling is not a natural thing for her. All of her smiles seem like [the fake smiles discussed in this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=433060). And it’s not about Hillary being a woman. Contrast her with Elizabeth Edwards. There’s a woman who is obviously smart and tough (more so than her husband on both counts, I daresay), but she also comes across as likeable and genuine. Her smiles seem authentic, and there is a real warmth about her. It’s no accident that she is often the public face of the Edwards campaign: she connects with people. Now there are those who say (and I heard this a lot in 2004) that likeability shouldn’t matter. The election should be about intellect and competence and policies. Well, those people are wrong. Or at least they’re wrong to say likeability doesn’t matter. It certainly matters when a candidate is trying to win votes. Moreover, likeability doesn’t stop being important when the election is over. If a president is going to get his or her policies implemented, that means coaxing others to go along with them. Coaxing Congress, and when members of Congress object, going over their heads and coaxing the American people. And in foreign policy, likeability matters in dealing with heads of state, in winning their trust and cooperation. Likeabilty adds much to persuasiveness, which is a skill a president must possess. Likeability is a job requirement (though not the only job requirement) for an effective president. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-please-don-not-nominate-hillary/415389.md?page=8)