I Don’t Like You, Hillary (and George)

As the old saying goes, if I had a dime for every time I have heard the phrase “I don’t like you,” I would be worth a few hundred thousand. Sadly though, that pales in comparison to our current chief executive. George W. Bush’s approval ratings (which encompass his on the job performance) has been at a consistent 32-34% over the past year, especially due in part to his waning war in Iraq. But the question I am attempting to answer this time around is whether the voters actually like a candidate (or incumbent) as a person; not as a politician (is that an oxymoron?).

George W. Bush relates to a vast majority of the electorate based on his “down to Earth, everyday man” image (why do you think he relishes photo ops at his ranch?). The man use to be an alcoholic, he is a failed business man, he weaseled his way out of military duty in Vietnam, he owns a farm, and he has an IQ of 90 (the average American is around 100-110, I believe?). Whether we like it or not, most of us have one thing or another in common with this man (I to have a DUI, yes!). That may have won him the election in 2000 (he didn’t win), but in 2004 his leadership ability won him re-election.

That brings be to the real issue, what is the electorate looking for on the current slate of presidential contenders? Likability does help a candidate in any election, whether it is presidential or local. “Packaging” the candidate is a key component of any organized campaign; looks, personality, etc… all matter in the modern political arena (John Adams, a fowl looking man, would’ve never won if he were running today). Hillary Clinton is the least liked presidential contender (she can come off as quite cold and “unfeminine”). But on the flipside of the coin, she is also leading in the polls because voters believe her life experiences (her husband was president for 8 years, you know) have bestowed upon her above average leadership skills.

In many ways Hillary Clinton will never escape the shadow of her husband. Bill Clinton was one of the most popular presidents in history (whether or not you believe he did anything for the country, the electorate love his “nice guy image”) and is still immensely popular. There is a good chance that as the election approaches; the aggregate of opinions will not change towards Hillary due to the fact that we already know her life’s story and that she was incredibly capable while in the first lady’s post. Rudy Giuliani and Mit Romney have scored high “likability ratings” on the GOP side, while Barack Obama and John Edwards have scored the highest on the Democratic side of the coin. You may be a nice guy (or woman), but it doesn’t guarantee that you’ll win.

Tough “Love” Bud

MLB Commissioner Bud Selig is contemplating suspending New York Yankees DH Jason Giambi for uncomplimentary comments about his possible use of performance enhancing drugs. Giambi, a former AL MVP has been linked to steroid use since his December 2003 BALCO grand jury testimony, in which he admitted to using steroids. Giambi’s latest trite occurred on May 18th when he was asked about performance enhancing drugs in a post game interview. Giambi subsequently stated in that interview:

“I was wrong for doing that stuff. What we should have done a long time ago was stand up -- players, ownership, everybody -- and said: `We made a mistake.' We should have apologized back then and made sure we had a rule in place and gone forward. ... Steroids and all of that was a part of history. But it was a topic that everybody wanted to avoid. Nobody wanted to talk about it.”

Jason, that was not exactly in your best interest, especially when Bud Selig has “independent investigator,” former Senator George Mitchell probing those who have potentially used performance enhancers in the last few years. In essence, Mitchell’s job is to clean up the game of baseball (good luck). Giambi was asked by the commissioner to comply with the senator’s inquiry, but as you can tell, Giambi hasn’t been too revealing in his conferences with Mitchell thus far.

This leaves Giambi at the mercy of Bud Selig and his “get tough” attitude on steroids. The chances are that Giambi will in fact be suspended by the commissioner for not cooperating with Mitchell’s investigation. If Selig is serious about cleaning up the game, I would like to see Giambi dismissed for at least 30 games; yes, 30 games, the amount of games a player is suspended for under the current rules if he tests positive for performance enhancing drugs.

Selig has been rather lethargic on the issue of steroids. But due to pressure from Congress and the public, he has been forced to step up his perambulation on the game. It isn’t enough that a plague-ridden imbecile is going to break the all-time homerun record under Selig’s watch, so I can understand if Bud comes down hard on Giambi. The trouble is that Gimabi’s suspension will surely be overturned due to the fact that steroid suspensions that do not include a positive test are not covered under the collective bargaining agreement.

There’s always next year, Bud…go get em!'