Hillary Clinton generated another telling campaign moment Saturday as she waged her finger and angrily said, "Shame on You Barack Obama". Her statement came after increasingly effective attacks by Obama on the Clinton administration's North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) -- a pact that is widely despised by the working class Ohio voters upon whom largely rest her hopes for keeping her candidacy alive.
But it's the style and tone of her response that tells volumes about why her campaign against Barack Obama is gradually sinking.
Granted, her "shame on you Barack Obama" was aimed at her opponent, not the voters, but it is symbolic of the tone of her entire campaign, and that tone is what is heard by the voters.
Hillary Clinton tends to lecture. She tells voters to "get real". She wags her finger, and reminds them of the way they felt when their sixth grade teacher told them that if they didn't stop talking in class and turn in their homework, they would never amount to anything.
People respond to being inspired and uplifted -- called upon to live up to their potential. They don't respond to being shamed, scolded or hectored.
Inspiration makes people feel empowered. It gets them to behave differently -- or vote differently -- through positive reinforcement. It makes them feel that they can do and be more than they are. People like being in the presence of someone who inspires them. Barack Obama is all about inspiration.
Clinton's tone is anti-inspirational. A lecturing, scolding tone makes people feel un-empowered. People don't like to be lectured. That's because lecturing tries to change people's behavior through negative reinforcement -- by scolding them. The fact is that positive reinforcement trumps negative reinforcement almost every time.
And that's not some "softheaded" liberal notion. The research on business management and motivating employees is almost unanimous: inspiration and positive reinforcement get results. Negative reinforcement gets results too, but often unexpected and counter productive results.
In Clinton's case, her scolding, "get real", "shame on you" tone just enhances the doubts of the many Americans who feel negatively about her in the first place. They don't like the prospect of her finger wagging at them on the TV and being lectured and scolded for the next four years.
Voters like the brief glimpses of the generous, personable Hillary that they saw at the end of the last debate. But the "shame on you", scolding Hillary drives them right into Obama's inspirational corner.
Much of the blame for this grave political problem rests with the Clinton campaign's early decision that she would run as the "Margaret Thatcher", iron-lady of American politics. That might have worked if she had been paired against many, run of the mill opponents. But it was a fatal decision in a race against a master of inspiration.
Being the anti-inspirational candidate is even more disastrous in a context where the overwhelming majority of Americans want fundamental change. Barack Obama says: "Yes we can change the way things are done in Washington." However she intends it, Clinton's anti-inspirational, finger waging style translates to: "Get real, you don't really think things are going to fundamentally change, do you?"
The contrast of inspiration and anti-inspiration has also contributed mightily to Obama's superior field operations and fundraising. Of course, tapping into the promise this inspiration presented required excellence in execution as well. But in things big and small the Obama Campaign has executed flawlessly and out hustled the Clintonistas at every turn.
Obama's grassroots, Internet-driven fundraising superiority required an inspirational candidacy to work. And the Obama campaign harnessed the grass roots energy with precision, vision and sophistication.
Obama's spectacular field operation has been fueled by the massive influx of inspired volunteers. And its superior organizational skills successfully turned motivated volunteers into phone bankers and canvassers.
I'm not of the school that it's all over but the shouting. With all of her negatives, Clinton may very well hang on for weeks or months. But with every wag of Hillary's finger, Obama's odds get better and better.
Forced to defend her "perfect world"!
Reality and truth don't exist in her "Twilight Zone"!
Losing not "Loosing"
Can you spot the error? Heh, I'm a grammar fanatic myself, but we all make mistakes when we're trying to get our thoughts out on the intertubes...
Come to think of it, I betcha Hillary is a grammar zealot, too.
Hillary is not my mother,my mother has passed on, and I am not looking for a new one. So she can take her condescending attitude back to the "Little Rock" that she crawled out from under.
Once she gets under that rock,maybe she can learn how to communicate with people. There is an old saying that I grew up with, the author is unknow so I cannot accredit him/her with it; "You can catch more flies with honey than you can vinegar".
Stop spewing the venom, and stop with the yellow pantsuits. Just because you're dressed like a bee, doesn't make you the QUEEN bee.
Oh please! Clinton was not wagging her finger at the public - she was going after her opponent who was sending out Republicanesque attack ads that misrepresented her health care plan (and furthermore was damaging any future credibility that Obama would have on universal health care if he were to be the nominee).
Male politicians wag their finger when attacking their opponents all the time...does that terrify you with nightmares of having your father scolding you daily from the TV? I doubt it.
I'm glad she decided to go after Obama on this issue. Sure, I thought that her tone was rather harsh, but honestly I'm not sure if people would listen to her if she dripped with honey. Unfortunately, men don't respect "sweet" women in positions of power. Sweetness in a women is seen as a sign of weakness or subservience, and if she were too soft, everyone would be screaming that she wasn't strong enough to be president. That said, she still could've tried a better balance, but I empathize with her situation.
This is "shame on you" style politics? And wait - I guess it's OK for her to attack his health care plan (Wisconsin mailer - "who will he leave out?") and OK to attack him on choice (the mailers in NH and CT and elsewher) - when he has a 100% pro-choice record?
It's not like he was attacking her based on whitewater or some other Bill Clinton era scandal - which would be sleazy...
99% of his campaign has been positive. I can't say the same for hers
Sure, it's a dumb way to try to win a popularity contest or a national election. But let's not forget that the underlying problem, here, is that we the people are churlish, petulant brats. "We don't like to be scolded; it makes us sad." Yeesh. I don't mind the Hillary criticism, but isn't this also a good time to remind us all to take responsibility for our own reactions and behaviors?
So unless you're seeking the robot vote, it is political suicide to pick unpopular unlikeable candidates. Even a robot should understand that.
Hillary is losing the popularity contest: her fault. The presidential election is a popularity contets: our fault. You'd think that by the time we hit voting age we'd have enough experience with our crazy, mixed-up human emotions to be able to control them long enough to pick a lever in a voting booth based on crazy things like say foreign policy.
what a bad temperament she displayed - don't disagree with her or she'll attack you, tell ya what she "expect of you" and then rub your head and say good doggie -
Nobody wants her to be nice - just be for real which she has no idea of how to be -
it seems the gist of clinton's argument is that we should ridicule obama's supporters because they are enthusiastic and filled with passion, filled with the fervor to join with others to try and make this a better country. how insulting. perhaps clinton thinks the founding fathers should be ridiculed for their enthusiastic passion for democracy in 1776?
aren't people who are filled with passion filled with life? without passion, there is only a dull kind of numbness. a kind of numbness that ignores its leaders when they betray their constituents(fisa). a kind of numbness where some think it is 'cool' to be dead to the world, letting someone else tell you what to think and do.
i guess when clinton-supporters try and decry obama-supporters as belonging to a cult they are actually projecting the passionless and mindless delusional support they themselves bestow upon their cult idol: hillary clinton.
hmmm, i am beginning to wonder: because clinton repeatedly denigrates passionate people, does that mean the clinton-idolators are actually passionless zombies, unable to conceive of supporting/obeying anyone else other than hillary clinton, while simultaneously bent on converting all to their cold sterile so-called way of life?
I used to enjoy reading Ms. Marsh. However, for her, Clinton vs. Obama is war. I'm sure that after the 2008 election is over, Ms. Marsh's work will again be something I can enjoy. She has a lot to offer. And I don't mind that she has lost perspective. But I prefer to keep mine.
Kept falling asleep!