The most important things in a President are to me competence and being able to keep Republicans out of office as many places as possible. Progressive reform is something that comes from the legislature more than the executive. I think Warren’s inspiring personally, and I’ll support her- but so far all of the major Dem candidates seem to be huge upgrades over the crap we had to choose from in 2016.
I really liked Clinton, but I just think she had an awful campaign. And I’ve heard she actually IS charismatic if you get her in a room/conversation. But on stage, she just wasn’t as able to project the same way. I blame that on prep work as much as anything else.
Clinton was supremely competent, and she would have been a good president. I didn’t have any reservations when it came to ultimately voting for her. And yes, in situations where she wasn’t delivering some preplanned speech or a debate, she was always quite personable.
Clinton tended to do her homework. She always prepared, and broke her ass in that preparation. This isn’t to say she couldn’t think on her feet, she totally could, as evident in her fucking million hour long session on the Hill. But wasn’t like Trump, who is just too lazy to prepare for anything. She would prepare as much as she possibly could.
The result though, was that in many situations, she already knows what the “right” answer is. She doesn’t have to come up with it on the fly, because she already figured it out. She’s just pulling up the reference that she’s already written down and put into her deck. She’s like a well prepared debater, who has a set of cards with references for every thing that could possibly come up.
But this preparation and pre-knowledge of all this stuff had the effect of making her seem more wooden. Also, the fact that she just knew so much about everything is (especially coming from a woman) intimidating to dumb people.
So folks can see what exactly we’re talking about regarding warren, here’s the interview, so folks can watch her delivery yourselves. To me, it’s just incredibly boring, even when talking about issues which I’m emotionally invested in like Puerto Rico.
Well, then we are getting another 4 years of Trump, because everyone on the Dem side will be the blander candidate against him.
Well, then it isn’t true and I said as much in the rest of the post you quoted from. The way she packages and presents the ideas makes them engaging and the other candidates fail to do that. I haven’t heard much from Harris or Klobuchar, but Gillibrand sounds like a kid delivering her lines in a play most of the time. She is not more engaging, she’s just younger and prettier.
I think some people are better in that venue and some are worse. The campaign should find the candidate’s best venue(s) and make those the centerpiece of its pitch. For example, if Warren’s best venues are speaking at a town hall or questioning a corporate stooge in front of the Senate, then they should make those the campaign, and downplay big stump speeches or pre-canned videos with scripted “moments”.
The same is probably true for the others - Gillibrand should emphasize interviews and well-produced videos, Bernie, Harris, Biden, and Beto should emphasize stump speeches, Biden should throw in impromptu appearances (if he can be a little less handsy), Booker should focus on social media, etc.
That’s a very real fear, imho. I mean, the GOP has been getting voters to go against their own interests for years. Trump has just really upped the ante.
edit - and actually, I agree with you on the approaches they should take
Dude, this just isn’t true.
Ok, look at the beginning of that AC360 interview.
Start at the 23 second mark, and go up until the 1:13 mark.
She’s talking about how PR’s basically been abandoned by everyone. This should inspire anger. This is a dramatic failure on the part of the US.
What emotion do you see conveyed in that part? Literally, I want you to watch that, and you tell me what emotion she’s conveying.
Because the answer I would give is “mild bemusement”. She kind of chuckles a little bit at one point, and ends the answer with a smile.
Now, I can tell you WHY this is the case. It’s because that’s what her handlers are telling her to do. They’re telling her to keep things low key, and smile, and crap like that. Because that’s what “women need to do.” She can’t risk coming off as “shrill” or whatever other crap like that. She needs to smile more, because people like when women smile. etc.
But the end result is that she’s super boring. There is no texture to her response. There is no emotion backing it, at all.
Would you get this into the weeds analyzing the absence of charisma in a male candidate? Older women face impossible odds. Meanwhile, the whole world is fawning and fretting over the 29 year old woman Representative from NY.
It’s exactly the same thing that lets Brad Pitt stay on screen while Angelina Jolie fades into middle age.
So don’t vote for Warren if you think she lacks something you need. But why is it so important to communicate how boring you think she is? Point is clear.
That isn’t what I see - I see a strong statement of a broad viewpoint, followed by a concrete example and a chuckle of exasperation at what’s going on (the government sending money to wall street that’s desperately needed on the island). The chuckle is a little too bemused for the severity of conditions in PR but it’s neither bland nor wooden.
I mean look at her response to the question after that - it’s firm, serious, and backed with low-key emotion. Then look at the answer after that - her frustration and passion about the issue there is also quite clear. Compare her demeanor to Cooper’s - she’s speaking in a calm but firm voice and is much more animated than he is. The PR response you highlighted is the weakest, it’s true, but she’s not wooden, she’s not bland. I don’t understand what you want to see in this interview that you aren’t seeing. Is it just the extra smiles that are off-putting?
Anyway, I find Gillibrand’s rehearsed emoting on Colbert, who is far more upbeat than Cooper, far less engaging than Warren’s authentic passion and frustration:
So much this. I saw a Twitter post the other day that said basically: “likability” or “charisma” are to female politicians what “well-spoken” or “articulate” are to black candidates. Even if people say you have that quality, is a backhanded complement at best- a bar you shouldn’t have ever had to cross if you were, say, a white dude.
Didn’t we just talk about Gore, Bernie, Biden, and other white dudes regarding this very same “boring/bland/charisma” issue?
Edit: this kind of analysis on “likeability” has been a thing since the Kennedy/Nixon debates.
Nail, meet head
Remember when I said this what a few months ago and got basically attacked for it?
These women are being held to impossible standards. I can’t wait until we start talking about how often someone smiles again.
Harris apparently eschewing PAC/corporate money in her campaign. I think she, Warren, Castro are all on that wave. Dunno if Gillibrand is.
Oof. Going to have to start deciding who to make contributions to. yay?
Yes we did and it is silly argument. If AOC decide to seek higher office nobody is going to complain about her lack of charisma and not just her looks (which are important for both men and woman candidates).
During the GOP primary, Carly Fiorina was considered one of the most charismatic candidate, based not only on her debate performance but her stump speeches.
I think of three Democratic woman, who all were widely viewed as charismatic and not because of their looks. Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman presidential candidate, Barbara Jordan, and Ann Richards.
I have been watching Professor Warren since circa 2005. When I engaged in a forum debate with Italian woman living who in the US who was self proclaimed communist/socialist. She had me watch lots of Warrens speeches. I found Warren to a much above average college professor in terms of charisma. Admittedly not a high bar.
However, I also remember her saying things during those speeches that while they weren’t radical for Harvard professor to say could easily be spun to be very radical by the GOP.
I don’t disagree, but optics matter to the electorate. I was rebutting the idea that charisma and “likeability” are traits we only criticize women candidates for not having. It’s patently untrue. We’ve been criticizing elected officials and candidates for decades on this stuff.
I feel like if there is ever a moment in history not to give a shit about what the GOP thinks is “radical,” this is it. Maybe I’m naive.
I completely agree with you charisma matters no matter what your gender. I think women candidate get criticized for their outfits, where men seldom do and that woman looks matter more than men. On the other hand women candidates don’t have worry about the wimp factor (including military service) where as men do.
How good your policies might be are pretty irrelevant if you can’t get elected.
The GOP will find dirt on any candidate the Dems run, but there is an argument for fully understanding what a candidate flaws are before nominated them. Obviously, this didn’t matter with respect to Trump,
Which is what’s so galling about all this. Sadly, my gall alone won’t influence an election.
If it could, the result would be epic. I’m talking Galactus levels of gall.