Hillary’s dismal performance in the debate at Drexel University was followed by more bad news: Americans don’t like her. In the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll, only 35% of Americans say she is likeable—a key indicator for the future results of her campaign.

Long before John Edwards and Barack Obama brazenly referred to Hillary as a flip-flopper and a liar, Insight Magazine, in a Washington Watch column, declared that Hillary will turn out to be the John Kerry of 2008. It seems that Democrats are beginning to agree: they have at last begun to realize that her flip-flopping will be as destructive for her as was Kerry’s in the 2004 election. This is because Americans, both on the left and the right, do not want to be treated as though they are too stupid to realize when a politician is not being straightforward.

We also indicated in a column that Hillary simply does not have sufficient experience to withstand the barrage that is going to descend upon her in a national campaign. Leading Democrats have now echoed our perspective and have begun to question the extent to which she has sufficient experience to lead. Her weaknesses are becoming starkly apparent. Hillary has a good vocabulary and celebrity status but apart from this, very few political accomplishments. She has stated repeatedly that she has “35 years of experience.” And yet, what legislative achievements can she boast of after 35 years? Her record is thin as lettuce.

As is painfully evident she has very little campaign experience. Indeed, she has been involved in the past in giving Bill advice on the campaign trail—but this is very different than being in the hot seat in one’s own campaign. Hillary has only two easy campaigns under her belt in New York: she essentially chose a liberal state she did not live in and used this to become senator. Even then, she achieved her victory mostly because she had been the most humiliated First Lady in American history and the electorate felt sorry for her. She simply turned her husband’s adultery into a vehicle for political power. Hillary, after all, is prominent today because she married Bill—not due to her own political merits.

This lack of experience cannot be argued away with a few catchy phrases—it is real, it shows and it will continue to be evident to the public. Her bad performance at Drexel University was compounded by an abysmal attempt at damage control: more damage was caused than if she had been silent in the aftermath. Her worse blunder was to declare she was being pounced on for being female; this was so cheap and transparent even liberals rolled their eyes. What will happen when a Republican candidate uses her words to peg her as a cry-baby? It will be easy to do. We can envision the ad: “If Osama bin Laden attacks us again, Hillary will pout and say America is being assaulted because she is a woman.” In short, her opponents will now mock her mercilessly and brand her as too weak to lead in an age of terrorism.

To further confirm that she is beginning to crack under the pressure, all of this bad press was followed by two very damaging reports about her campaign staffers planting questions in audiences—they lied about it when caught red-handed, then confirmed it and promised not to do it again, then did again a few days later and repeated the same lies. Is Hillary so pathetic on the campaign trail that she needs to be spoon-fed questions? What will happen when world leaders ask her questions she dislikes or when the American press gets feisty with her? Her weakness and lack of self-confidence in this regard is astonishing and unacceptable for a candidate running to be the leader of the world’s greatest power.

Worse of all for Hillary: very few people like her. She is simply unable to connect with the common man or woman. Similar to Kerry, she is an elitist snob who is contemptuous of American citizens. No amount of baby-kissing can conceal this. She believes—as most liberals do—that she is more enlightened than the average American citizen. She appears cold, arrogant, egotistical and ruthless. Ironically, her husband’s flaws served him well in one respect: his fleshy and gluttonous personality masked his elitist political philosophy. Hillary, on the other hand, has no such decoy: it is obvious she believes she is superior to us all and is entitled to rule.

Furthermore, Hillary has clearly forsaken virtually all aspects of her life in the pursuit of power. She does not have a hobby, does not have a sense of humor, and does not even have much of a personality. Americans recoil from individuals who want power so much; they are rightly suspicious. The Hillary camp will soon see that “spin” cannot make Americans like a candidate: they either do or do not.

In all of the elections in the past twenty-five years, the candidate who was most likeable won. Reagan’s warmth and humor outshone Carter’s holier-than-thou disposition; Bush Senior appeared gentlemanly in contrast to the goofy Dukakis; Clinton was warm and fuzzy when compared to the patrician and aloof Bush Senior; and Dubya was folksy and charming in contrast to the wooden Gore or the elitist Kerry.

Americans, after all, don’t just elect a resume—they elect a person. They know that the person they choose will not only make key decisions but will be on their television screens, and thus in their living room and kitchen, for the next four years. They therefore have to like the person they elect.

And more than just liking a candidate, Americans often feel the need to romanticize or create myths about their presidents. They don’t just want to pull a lever on Election Day; their patriotism cries out for more. Americans want to feel as though they have a personal relationship with their leaders. Foreigners have never been able to grasp this aspect of the American psyche: Americans have to feel something in their heart and soul for the person they choose. In short, Americans love to fall in love with their presidents. They see it as synonymous with loving their nation.

The American public has indicated that in the next election they prefer to have Democrats in power—except for Hillary. She makes the public uneasy. She is strange, creepy. Most Americans sense in their gut that she is bad news for the country. Hence, the question remains: Why is the Democratic Party entertaining this candidacy for as long as they have? They are like lovers in a relationship going sour but who do not have the strength to walk away.

-Washington Watch is a column published in Insight (www.insightmag.com)