Thank you for saying that.
And thank you VERY much for saying that! I do more than suspect; what I’ve seen so far absolutely convinces me. But if I had said it, I just would have been put on a spit and roasted.
stoid
Well I for one could see Al Gore giving the exact same speech Bush gave (except he’d use his hands more.)
It’s an interesting point you make Stoid.
I’d respond as follows. The criticism at Hillary is mostly directed at the fact that her mannerisms seemed partisan, and that she didn’t get on the unity bandwagon.
I think most people, including myself think that this is due to poor handling and prep. She wasn’t with the program, and that’s somebody’s fault. She made a mistake, not a humongous one, but a mistake nonetheless.
If she’s smart (and I don’t think anybody is saying she isn’t,) she’ll address this mistake in the near future by saying something positive about the unified stance our political system is presenting in the face of this threat, or better yet she’ll openly praise Giuliani.
She made a mistake. That’s all. At some point some Republican is going to come out and blame Clinton for not blowing up Bin Laden in '93 and he’s gonna get crucified. And, he’ll deserve it.
It’s not the time for partisanship, and I for one think you’ve set a fine example, and one that I’ll attempt to follow.
I’ll openly criticize anybody who plays party politics with this crises.
Gadarene:
Evaluating this country’s leaders and the job they are doing is a sign of “seriously misplaced priorities”?
I don’t think that’s what you meant.
The other possibiliy is that some members of her own party left her hanging and she got bad information as to what the party line was going to be that night.
I understand there’s been some resentment at the way she’s walked into a lot of power and attention as a very junior member, even within her own party.
Maybe she was snubbed.
I dunno.
Blacksheepsmith: As you note, I suspect we’re saying much the same thing, but coming at it from precisely opposite previous positions.
In defense of Gadarene, who I have discovered over the past two years usually has reasonable (if wrong ;)) viewpoints, I suspect he read your “performance” in the narrower sense of “Alec Baldwin turned in a terrific performance in the role created by Alec Guinness.” And I have very little interest myself, a position I believe shared by Gadarene, in the histrionic capacities of our political leaders. However, I understood you to be using “performance” in the broad sense – how well they perform in the jobs we have elected them to – and their oratorical or public-scrutiny-mannerisms characteristics only insofar as they are indicative of the broader skills required for their jobs.
I’d also like to bring out one final thought re the OP: Has anyone given any thought to the possibility that, as a woman determined to avoid the “carpetbagger” status and function as her adoptive state’s junior Senator (and having spent much time visiting the disaster area), and as an intensely private person who keeps a great deal of compassion for the injured and downtrodden tightly bound within her, she may have merely been totally emotionally wiped out by that point – with an attitude that amounted to: “George, I’m here because it’s expected of me. Now hurry up and get this over with – there’s a lot to be done, and I need a good night’s sleep somewhere in the mix.”
Polycarp:
Well not that precisely.
She didn’t look downtrodden or emotionally spent, she looked disdainful and patronizing.
In certain areas you have to give Hillary a lot of credit. She’s tough and she’s sharp. No doubt about either of those things.
In eight years as First lady I don’t think Hillary’s been caught off-guard once, and I don’t think she was caught off guard that evening either. As a lawyer, and as First lady, she knows when she’s onstage, and she’s smart enough to be aware of the image she is portraying, and to be doing it deliberately. I’d count on that.
I just think she or her handlers made a mistake or were misinformed prior to the speech.
I’d also say the media didn’t do her any favors.
Bush was talking about Mr. Beamer’s widow, that pretty little blonde pregnant thing, and about how he died a hero, and the camera is showing the poor widow looking mournful and angry.
Then the camera immediately cuts over to Hillary who is chatting to the person next to her with a smile behind her hand, seeming disdainful.
That came off pretty badly.
Is it evaluating Senator Clinton’s job performance to dissect her facial expressions?
If you beleive that they are deliberately intended to convey a message to her constituents, then yes.
Either way you take it we have to draw a conclusion.
I see three possibilities:
-
Intentional - She made a mistake.
-
Unintentional - She is not the consumate professional who is able to project the proper image.
-
Her Doctor prescribed a large and uncomfortable suppository made of sandpaper.
BTW: Does anybody else think they oughtta tape Georges ears down before he speaks?
Why stop there? 
(I feel sorry for Bush’s speechwriters – all that effort to craft an elegant essay for the nation, just so he can mangle it…)
Polycarp:
Yes, I did mean performance in the broader sense. I also meant it the other way, but I’d like to draw a distinction between what I’m talking about and “histrionics.”
I meant simply that a good part of any leader’s reponsibility is to appear in-control, confident, sincere, competent, and capable.
(Of course, it’s always nice if the leader also has those characteristics, but you can’t always have the best of everything, can you?)
A leader is not doing a good job if those qualities don’t come across to those they’re supposed to be leading.
A good part of the way those qualities are communicated is demeanor and attitude. So in judging whether a leader’s doing a good job, it’s reasonable to look at demeanor and attitude.
Demeanor and attitude sometimes–I’d say often–involves physical appearance. And gestures. Whether the person sweats a lot. Or they lick their lips when they speak. Or look you in the eye.
Or give a golf clap during a speech.
Or have a nervous facial tick. Or mess up words.
So it’s not silly or stupid or somehow “anti-American” to mention such things, or consider them as indicators. My national priorities aren’t mixed up or misplaced because I pay attention to such things and they matter to me.
It’s easy enough to fire off a dismissive sentence about “misplaced priorities” and let it go at that. It’s a lot harder to actually consider another person’s point of view.
For example:
I’m cynical, and I never really stopped to consider that Hillary Clinton, as the senator from NY, might have been–well, worn a little freakin’ thin by the time Bush’s speech rolled around. Instead, I argued that she must have been deliberately communicating a political stance, that it was a bad choice, and I didn’t agree with it and it bothered me that she and her people would make that mistake because its such a stupid mistake to make.
Your point, though, that she might have been (quite understandably) strung out is well-taken. In which case, I guess I could argue that she’s failed as a leader because she wasn’t able to muster and communicate the proper attitude and demeanor for the situation despite how tired and crappy she felt, but I’m just not going to go down that road.
I’m not that cynical.
Can we just trade Hillary’s “golf clapping” for Dubya’s smirks and call it even, for pity’s sake?