HRC on Obama: Oh, He's Got Charm, if You Like Charm!

The Financial Times deconstructs, as many are doing, Hillary's campaign from the sincerity/authenticity perspective:

[HRC is in] a position few expected her to be in. Not long ago, success in the primaries and victory in the general election were regarded as almost inevitable. What went wrong?

For the answer, one should turn (as always) to the teachings of Marx. “The secret of success in life is sincerity,” Groucho once famously observed. “If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

FT elaborates on the facade HRC has erected around her inner East German Border Guard persona:

[...For] most of the time she has veered from one false personality to another, often during the course of a single debate or interview. One moment she would be acting tough, the next warm; now aloof, now approachable; now a fun person, fond of a joke (that was the worst), now stern and serious. In every moment of repose came that scary rictus smile, to emphasise the lack of authenticity and remind one irresistibly of Jack Nicholson in The Shining.

Bingo!! The semi-autistic obsessive chasing a dream to the exclusion of relationships---an overachiever, as we used to say before that became "hurtful."
FT points out the dirty little secret that Obama's bullet points on Health Care & stance on NAFTA are as well thought-out as Clinton's:

But mistakes in reporting this story did not all go in Mr Obama’s favour. The press has picked up the line that he is all style and no substance as eagerly as the Clinton campaign could wish. Mrs Clinton’s position on healthcare, for instance, is reverently acknowledged as a working blueprint, with every last detail nailed down. Not at all: it is a set of bullet points, no more detailed than Mr Obama’s outlined proposal. Mrs Clinton has not even said how her individual health-insurance mandate – the crucial difference, she tirelessly insists, between her plan and Mr Obama’s – will be enforced. And consider her “time out” on trade. Could you have a vaguer policy than that?

In another blog today, I read one fellow named Henry blaming Penn for understaffing the field offices in Iowa until Obama's tireless enthusiasts and better ground game had made catch-up impossible in the Iowa Caucuses, giving Obama the priceless opportunity to market his narrative against hers---the personal dimension and bravo!:

The main thing, however, is that in choosing between Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama, character is key because their differences on policy are trivial. This is why the complaint about style over substance falls flat. Moreover, it is no expression of bias to say that Mr Obama has grown more confident and effective in the debates; or that he is a more likeable and appealing politician than Mrs Clinton; or that audiences respond to him with far greater enthusiasm. These things just happen to be true. The Clinton campaign only made matters worse by striving to deny what was obvious to everybody else.

Her mechanistic bullet-point style couldn't match up with his loftier approach---HRC tried to batter his "style," but only pointed out the great difference in the CHARM & LIKEABILITY sweepstakes.

That is where Obama became Secretariat to her spavined nag.