I supported U.S. President Barack Obama long before he became
president, but I have to confess that my preference for him was
initially more because of my aversion towards Hillary Clinton and,
specifically, her way of doing politics. Shortly after, however, I
was pleased to discover that my instincts were right.
Obama deserved support based on his merits and not as a default
choice. After reading his first book, Dreams From My Father,
I realized that Obama was a different politician, not just
because of the colour of his skin, but because he has a more honest
and close-to-the-people approach to politics.
On the other hand, Clinton has reconfirmed that she's a typical
slick and arrogant politician in all her capacities: when she was
First Lady, a Senator, a candidate for the presidency of United
States and now as the secretary of state.
It was mainly her arrogance that killed the
aspiration of millions of Americans to have a national healthcare
program, and it was her arrogance, the attitude of overestimating
herself, as we read The Audacity to Win, by David
Plouffe, that made her lose the democratic nomination that was hers
to take. It is her arrogance that eventually will drown her out as
secretary of state.
I'm not talking about the merits of her ideas on Afghanistan or
abortion. I'm talking about her political style.
Clinton proved during her visit to Canada last week, once again,
that it is not enough to have good ideas to lead, you need to be a
decent person to sell them. It's not enough to be intelligent if you
are not smart. Lecturing in politics is not the best way to
communicate with people. One must be able to talk, listen and have a
dialogue with the people. She has never been able to talk directly
to people but has always traded on other people's charisma; her
husband Bill's and now Obama's.
Clinton, seemingly forgetful of the fact that she was a guest,
arrived in Canada like a cowboy crushing every rule of diplomacy and
good manners.
Before any talks with government officials even started, she went
on national Canadian networks twisting arms by talking about
Afghanistan. Then she started lecturing Canadians about helping
women around the world and posturing about social issues in the
Arctic. She didn't join a meeting of the five Arctic coastal states
because she objected to the exclusion of aboriginal groups and three
other northern nations, and she left Canada's Foreign Affairs
Minister Lawrence Cannon alone at the podium of a joint press
conference with all the Arctic ministers. I'm wondering what she did
for North American aboriginals during her eight years at the White
House with her husband and several more years as a Senator.
She might have a difference of opinion on many issues with former
president George W. Bush, but her style is the same as his.
This means that she hasn't learned the lesson that arrogance will
get her nowhere.
She arrived at the White House believing she, and not her
husband, had the power to change the world but was unable to deliver
the main commitment she made with Americans, public health care.
She tried again to regain the White House but lost it because,
again, she overestimated her capacities and underestimated others.
Last week she arrived in Canada believing that the rules of
courtesy, diplomacy and reciprocal respect are pedantic nuisances
for weak and stupid people, not for luminaries such as herself.
Recall that Bill Clinton was forced to rein her in during his
first mandate, otherwise, he would have lost the second one. Soon,
U.S. President Barack Obama might be forced to do the same, before
she creates serious problems in a secretariat that is responsible
for the name and the prestige of the United States of America in the
world.
One last consideration: can you imagine the reaction in Canada if
these diplomatic slaps in the face had come from the Republican
Condoleezza Rice instead of the Democrat Hillary
Clinton?
