The "Authenticity" Gap: Why Clinton v. McCain Will be Hard to Win and Very, Very Ugly

A Clinton-McCain match up gives Republicans the "authenticity" edge for the third consecutive presidential election and that's why I'm starting to lose sleep. "Authenticity," not to be confused with authenticity (sans quotes), is the perception of genuineness, the quality of what-you-see-is-what-you-get-ness that is more highly prized in a presidential race than any stance on any particular issue. While George W. Bush may have been a pathologically duplicitous leader, often to the point of high farce, he has always been "authentic." George W. the Human Being is the same as George W. the President is the same as George W. the Candidate.

This is why he "won" two elections. While John Kerry and Al Gore were both brilliant, honorable statesmen, neither was as comfortable in his own skin as America's favorite son George. We all know this shouldn't have mattered, but it did -- and we have been blessed with the last seven years. I could go further back to Clinton the First and Reagan to further expound on the theory of "authenticity" but I think you get the point. So, on to 2008...

I'm not saying Hillary Clinton isn't actually authentic, but "authenticity" is all about perception, and John McCain wins this battle blindfolded and with his hands tied behind his back. Say what you will about the man's political inclinations, he is off-the-charts "authentic." This means we risk a third straight election fighting an uphill "authenticity" gap - with a few key differences.

First, while George W. Bush was a giant dartboard of character flaws, John McCain isn't.

"Bush is inexperienced." "Bush is arrogant." "Bush is lazy." "Bush is an ideologue." "Bush drove drunk." "Bush ducked Vietnam." "Bush killed my cat."

Do any of these work for John McCain? Right.

Second, McCain is a war hero.

Third, John McCain is -- drumroll, please -- actually authentic. No quotes needed. You may not agree with him, but, as politicians go, he's about as decent as they come, so you have to respect him. And almost everyone does.

Scared yet? So what should Hillary do?

Gore and Kerry came to the table armed with a laundry list of policies but lacking a central vision (those "ideas" Barack Obama correctly praised Reagan for). They demonstrated that a policy-wonk Democrat will still have huge problems against any Republican who is deemed more "authentic." What Hillary will need in order to overcome this gap is more than a superior platform. She will need a superior vision (or "vision").

Does she have one? Well... kind of. Like her Democratic rivals, she is peddling the elixir of change (Now with More Experience in every bottle!), but Hillary's vision of change is perceived as a collection of progressive policies rather than a broad sweeping movement. While Obama wants to change the tone and Edwards wants to change the class system, Hillary seems to be fighting for...well... the same as those other guys, but with a longer résumé. Her campaign has changed slogans as often as Rudy changes wives, and one has to wonder whether her "vision" has the clarity to compete against McCain.

It's not a slam dunk. Against the opportunistic Romney or the Bible-thumping Huckabee, probably. But McCain is the wrong matchup. His message mirrors hers -- change with experience -- except that he's got more experience. And while any opponent can easily condemn Hillary as "more of the same," given the 20 dynastic years of Bush-Clinton-Bush, McCain is uniquely positioned to level such a charge given his renowned independent streak. It will be hard for Hillary to sell herself as a breath of fresh air running against the man who has made the media lazily forget that the word "maverick" isn't actually a prefix for the word "senator."

I'm not saying Hillary can't beat McCain, and I'm not saying she wouldn't be a wonderful president. But, I think it is important that we ask ourselves, as Democrats, how she would approach such a race.

The last few weeks have given us some frightening clues. Hillary is currently in a close race against the more "authentic" Barack Obama. She has some natural advantages that she has been exploiting, such as: name recognition, the "experience" factor, and the tantalizing prospect of being the country's first female president. She also has one key disadvantage: her comparatively muddled "vision." But rather than working to make her "vision" more clear and compelling, and pressing her natural advantages, Clinton's campaign has increasingly resorted to Rove-ian mischaracterizations of Obama and his positions (apparently Barack defends slumlords, is iffy on a woman's right to choose, and has a crush on Reagan).

These attacks may ultimately work against Obama, chiefly because people don't know him, just as most Americans didn't know John Kerry before he ran for president. But they know John McCain. And that's why these sorts of attacks won't work on him. Whether or not independent voters agree with McCain's politics, few question his character. Have no doubt: if the Clintons try to swiftboat John McCain, it will surely backfire.

Any Democrat who faces McCain will be in for a good fight, but I believe Obama (or even John Edwards) has the clarity of vision, the perception of authenticity, and the actual authenticity to be able to fight fair and win. With Clinton, I worry that her deficits will force her and her husband into desperation and ugliness. Current trends are not encouraging.

Comments

[julianne]

One saving grace for McCain is the bill he put forth with Russ Feingold to try to temper the corporate-fascist two-party lie of a democracy we live in. Other than that, he volunteered to bomb the Vietnamese just like he wants to continue to bomb Iraq and then bomb Iran, our usual hillbilly-white trash foreign policy. He discusses no other long term plan for our country - economic, population, energy, et al. He has a long term plan for nothing except giving citizenship to 14-20 million illegal immigrants entering from a nation with the highest fertility rate in the Western World while the carrying capacity of the U.S. environment remains totally overwhelmed. I'm sorry he was tortured in Viet Nam but at least he came home alive from that murderous rampage that he supported and still does. I am a Viet Nam vet and will say when perhaps others can't, that this may be why he appears to be mentally ill. When he danced on stage and sang, "Bomb Iran, bomb Iran!", I think people all over the world thought to themselves, "what a sick son of a bitch." Last but not least, McCain is a Republican which has become the party of American Corporate Fascism.

[EdwardTx]

This basically sums up my transformation from a "what is he thinking" Obama doubter to "why not Obama." The pragmatic side of me said that Edwards is the only hope for a Democratic victory. He is a white male from the South and that is the only type of Democratic candidate who has been elected to the presidency in my lifetime.

But for some time HRC has been the anointed candidate. I know in my heart that she can not--I daresay will not--win against an average Republican candidate, let alone Sen. McCain, in November. And that was before her husband began his self-destructive downward spiral. When voters are reminded of the "good ole days" of the Clinton years they will vote Republican. And while some Clinton loyalists tout the former president's electoral skills, he never won 50% plus one of the vote. No Democrat has won a majority of the popular vote since 1976; that's an electoral reality. (And yes, I know electoral votes determine the outcome not popular votes)

Given that landscape it is not taking a chance on Sen. Obama when the writing is on the wall that Sen. Clinton can not win. He may be able to succeed while it is certain she will not.

[bkztx]

Obama was raised by whites, after his African father took off and left him and never looked back. Obama has spent his entire life trying to be "black." How is that authentic? Obama will win the nomination and then ultimately lose to McCain, then we will have 8 more years of a Republican president.

[Roxanna]

It is down right scary the thought of a Hilary/Bill ticket running against a John McCain. Americans may get exactly what they deserve if they don't read up on "dirty politicking" before voting in these vital primaries.

It will be the same old... same old.... Many will not bother to vote while others will vote without being informed. How sad.

This country so needs inspiring change. How can that happen with a ticket like that?

[DoninJoisey]

Edwards gave a "concession" speech, brief, but a class act. Hillary didn't have the class or decency to give the customary speech - thanking supporters, congratulating Obama, etc...
Character shows, and she has none.

[DoninJoisey]

Listening to the news now - Obama got TWICE the votes Hill/Bill did in South Carolina.
I love South Carolina right now. I just wish Edwards would have come in second.
Guess who gave the speech afterward? BILL, not Hillary.

Bill's running for a third term by proxy.

Can't the feminists see thru this? It isn't for Hillary, it's for Bill.

[fitCTmom]

This article explains EXACTLY why if Obama isn't nominated, this democrat will vote for MCCAIN.

[scandals&skeletons]

steamboater posts:
You have to be pretty naive to believe that Romney or whoever gets the GOP nod won't use the same tactic against whoever the dems nominate. It's the way the GOP played Vietnam as well e.g., the dems want to cut and run, they want us defeated etc. It's all bullshit and a typical GOP demogogue tactic.

yes steamboater, not only that tactic, but any tactic they think might work from the karl rove playbook. But it is possible (possible, but unlikely) that since almost everyone who has access to a computer can fact check anything the media puts out, hell maybe Americans will wake up and say no more of this bs. give us the truth, we demand it!
naaah.

[scandals&skeletons]

sjl106 you are seriously delusional if you think clinton will beat mccain. if clinton is the nom every right winger, evangelical, etc...will come out to vote for anyone the repubs nominate if it is a battle against clinton.

[midtown]

The problem with a Clinton nomination is that the country is that the country will then ask itself: has the United States become Argentina?

Are we going to continue to vote in dynasties? When does this stop? The word was out last week that Chelsea wants to enter politics.

BCBC . . . antediluvian?

[scandals&skeletons]

krocklin, you missed the point of the whole article. it is perception as opposed to reality. and clearly at least half (and probably growing larger everyday thanks to bill & hill's spinning and lying.) the countries perception of hillary is not good. on the other hand most of the countries perception of mccain is good. you should probably read the article again, unless of course you are just a clinton cheerleader.

[dogman44]

If Clinton is the dem pick I will sit the election out. I am so tired of the same old
shit!

[pfc1369]

John Mc Cain is not a war hero. He is, however, a "war hero."

There are no war heroes, only "war heroes."

[krocklin]

many of the posters are repeating the republicans "talking points".
hillary has "too many negatives"?
mccain and all the other republican candidates embrace most of the bush legacy. which "negatives" would you rather have? hers or those associated with this moron president?

[rssrai]

Obama is a phony. All of his ideas and speeches is stolen from John Edwards. The only genuine candidate in this race is JRE. The only one who is not taking special interest money is JRE. The only one who can actually challenge John McCain on ethics is JRE. Obama has a big Rezko problem.