How can I explain it? Many of my political cognoscenti pals have been weighing in with the gravitas argument this weekend. Gravitas is a funny thing. In many ways it has nothing to do with experience. When he first ran for President in 2004 I was clear in my own mind that John Edwards possessed no gravitas. Now, four years later, he still has no gravitas.
Hilary has experience, but does she have gravitas? I think not. My goodness, she certainly does have experience. She also has well crafted positions on everything under the sun. I wonder, however, how many of those positions emanate from introspection and thoughtful analysis and how many spring from focus-grouped, micro-targeted positioning (thank you Mark Penn).
On Hilary, my cognoscenti pals ask all the right questions. You agree she is experienced, don’t you? You agree she has great platform positions, don’t you? She did a great job with Russert this morning, don’t you think? To those and most every other question I have to nod in the affirmative. But, there is something missing.
Partly, I think I am tired of positions and platforms. Maybe I am also suffering Clinton exhaustion. I want something new, and I want leadership.
[I had a flashback of 1968 today. McCarthy and Kennedy vs. Johnson and Humphrey.
The “Happy Warrior” was so yesterday and Kennedy was about tomorrow. Those distinctions, the war and the generational split give me a feeling of déjà vu all over again.]
Gravitas is about leadership. Barack Obama has gravitas in my view. I don’t think Hilary does. In fact, I think he is the only patrician running for President. And, we need a patrician with gravitas to lead this nation.
More about that patrician notion of mine, 1968 redux and the on-going right brain/left brain struggle in forthcoming blog posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment