It’s starting to get to the point where I’m waking up and asking myself this question: Just who Hillary Clinton will be today.

Maggie Williams’ and Mark Penn’s barking pit bull? The polite politician who channeled (or plagiarized, according to her definition) both her husband and John Edwards at the end of the Austin debate? The Howard Beale-like prophet who talks about “celestial lights” and is this close to screaming “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more!” during her stump? Are we going to play the crying game one more time?

If it took HRC 35 years to find her voice, then her ass done lost it again.

And that’s her problem–she doesn’t come off as authentic. That’s especially true when she’s set against the ever-growing backdrop of Barack Obama. When their policies so closely mirror one another, why should anybody pick her? He’s had one consistent message his entire campaign–actually, for his entire political career–and it is using eloquent speeches along with progressive thinking to create a new majority. Her message, like her policies (read NAFTA), change with the winds of political expediency. Besides, if she were President, not only would she be hamstrung by her and her husband’s cover-your-ass mentalities, but also by the fact that roughly half of this country doesn’t like her. Four more years of triangulation and tall tales, followed by another post-Clinton Republican resurgence.

I’m very curious to see which Hillary will come out during tonight’s debate. My gut tells me that we’ll see the same angry “slumlord Rezko” fire-eater that we witnessed in that last three-participant debate with Edwards. I guess we’ll all just have to wait a couple of hours and see.

This much is sure: While she’s been toggling through “voices” like Sherwin-Williams paint swatches, the rest of the Democratic Party has found its voice. That voice has spoken out loud and clear–for Barack Obama.

Comments RSS