Re: Hillary's "Conversation"

As predicted, Hillary's first webchat didn't produce any astonishing new positions from the Senator or any uncomfortable questions from out of the wild web yonder.

What it did produce is a ton of email addresses for the Hillary Clinton campaign (you had to give an email address in order to watch the chat), more grist for the continuing mainstream media coverage of Hillary's newly-launched presidential bid, a bunch of well-screened questions from the public, and a study in Clinton's on-camera demeanor.

Clinton was, as even her detractors have taken to noting, extremely competent. She was obviously in command of all the issues that came up (health care, terrorism, energy independence, etc.) and in her instinct toward intelligent inquiry and perpetual dialogue she provided a stark contrast to the man she wants to replace. But I don't know if she passed the likability test, the test of whether the average American wants to watch her on television (or on some computer's media player) for four years starting in 2008.

Perhaps it's unfair, but the inevitable comparison one ends up reaching for, when watching Hillary speak, is with her husband. And she is not as smooth or emotive as Bill Clinton, nor is she as warm. The question is whether, after eight years of Bush, Americans will settle for cold and competent. Andrew Sullivan frames it this way:

Hillary is essentially saying that we should trust her. She is giving us a clear signal of what a second Clinton administration would be like: all the centrism and responsibility of her husband’s eight years but without any of the charm.

Is that what Americans want? It seems that what they want is a form of escapism (in the form of Edwards), charisma (in the shape of Barack Obama), or integrity (in the guise of John McCain). But when the decision nears and the stakes, especially abroad, begin to seep in, might Hillary be right? Might they actually be yearning for dullness, competence and responsibility?