The Hazards of an Unguarded Moment

"Hillary Clinton, in a rare candid moment on the trail. . . . "

"Hillary Clinton, in a rare candid moment on the trail, apologized to a man who confronted her over comments made earlier this year about putting coal miners "out of business."     NBC News report, today, May 3, 2016.

They were a "misstatement" she admitted.

"What I said was totally out of context from what I meant because I have been talking about helping coal country for a very long time," she said. "What I was saying is that the way things are going now, we will continue to lose jobs. That's what I meant to say."


Hillary's actual comment was in the context of a her describing the efforts to ameliorate the effects of the move from coal to cleaner renewable energy sources, a vast global trend much bigger than any one candidate or president.  But she said aloud something that was obvious and undeniable but which must not be uttered where it will be heard in coal country: coal miners are going out of business.  It definable as a gaffe, a mistake.    It was not an error; it was worse than an error; it was the truth.

Gaffes are accidentally saying aloud truths which must not be acknowledged.

This blog has readers who posit Joe Biden as an alternative to Hillary.   Joe is a stand in for a generic Democrat who is, in addition, a regular guy, who says genuine from the heart unguarded things.  Joe's politics aren't all that different from Hillary's but he is likable, in part because he seems spontaneous and genuine.   Hillary with a personality transplant.

My very first post--265 posts ago--noted that Hillary seemed controlled and scripted, as if a witness over-prepared by her attorney for her testimony.   She was speaking at a high dollar fundraiser, among friends, without press or cameras, but of course in a situation where recordings are always possible.  She was careful, and therefore less appealing because of it.

Hillary was most appealing to me in two circumstances that come quickly to mind. 

Guarded Smile

 The first was in 2008, at a New Hampshire debate where the questioner noted that Hillary was the better qualified candidate, that voters "see your resume and like it but are hesitating on the likability issue, where they seem to like Barrack Obama more."   As the question begins she has on her mask-of-forced-smile, a wall of defense.   You can't hurt me, the mask says.    But at its completion she acknowledges the verdict and admits,  "Well, that hurts my feelings."

"Well that hurts my feelings"

It was a moment of apparent unguarded humanity.  She looked wonderful.  Honest.  Appealing.   


Obama's later comment that "You're likable enough", very faint praise, made him look bad in contrast.    She went from behind in the polls in New Hampshire to win handily in New Hampshire, perhaps a 20 point electoral swing in one minute and 15 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHJeptnpNWU


Eight years later, in this campaign cycle on Saturday Night Live, when Hillary played the role of bartender talking with an actress playing the part of candidate Hillary Clinton--a candidate hobbled by lacking authenticity--Hillary had her most appealing moment in this campaign.   Taking the role of compassionate bartender she appeared to understand and acknowledge the real Hillary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jh2n5ki0KE

Hillary has time in this campaign for breakthrough moments, time for people to see the woman behind the frozen mask.   But moments of authenticity are high risk for her.  People take offense to her supposed gaffes while Trump's gaffes are perceived very differently.   She is velcro.   Trump is teflon.   She makes gaffes.  Trump says it like it is.

It is terribly unequal, and if there is fairness or unfairness in politics it is undeniably unfair.  But it is what it is.

The incident with the coal miner comment shows why the Hillary Clinton campaign is rigidly controlled and disciplined, and that is her dilemma.   Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.   If she is spontaneous in the least, if she accidentally voices some two seconds of honest truth, she is punished for it.   But if she is controlled  and lawyered-up she appears shifty and unlikeable.  

There is a kind of abused animal vibe to Hillary: a dog that appears unfriendly because it is wary and defensive, having seen so much abuse.   It dare not wag its tail.

This dilemma could decide the future of the country in a showdown between Donald Trump, whose unguardedness is seen as a virtue by a great many, versus Hillary Clinton whose guardedness is perceived as proof of a character flaw.   It is not all bad for Hillary, though because Trump's spontaneity has its own electoral downside.   Trump is perceived by many as dangerously careless in a world with nuclear weapons in contrast to Hillary who appears deliberate and reasonable and safe.   Trump has his own trustworthiness problem.

Hillary is locked in as the candidate for continuity, for better or worse.   Trump is the candidate for change.   Those are set points.   What is not set and locked in is whether  people will see enough glimpses of an appealing Hillary to decide that at bottom they like her enough to see her in their living rooms for 4 years.    

The question is whether Hillary is likable enough.