Passion vs. Petulance

After the New Hampshire debates this weekend, some have described Senator Clinton's response to competitors' attacks as "shrill."

Why? Why not "impassioned"? She can't help the fact that her voice is higher in pitch than Senator Obama's or Mr. Edwards's. (Imagine the flack she'd receive if it weren't, *cough* Janet Reno *cough*.) What is she supposed to do when she gets passionate about something?

And even if she's "shrill," so what. The U.S. has tolerated more than 8 years, counting campaigns, of "leadership" from a man whose every response to a legitimate question sounds like a delinquent teenager called into the principal's office.

President Bush shares this arrogant petulance with the Canadian Prime Minister. Canadians, and the Canadian press, have largely accepted this insolence as a suitable way for leaders to communicate, though I think often they miss the sarcasm and defensiveness when Mr. Harper shifts the discussion to the opinions of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

But back to the U.S.--again, I'm not an apologist for Senator Clinton, who certainly needs none. Furthermore, it's not true that "anything would be better than what we have." We shouldn't measure this group of candidates with a bar set that low.

Instead, we should expect--and welcome--passion from our leaders and potential leaders. And we should stop tolerating petulance. These people lead because we asked them to. We entrust them to make decisions on our behalf. They answer to us. Therefore, asking questions is our right (and duty) and answering them is their job. We deserve better than the attitude from our leaders that we're getting--on both sides of the border.

Impassioned, thoughtful leadership should be the focus of the campaigns--both the one underway in the U.S. and the one everyone expects up here this spring.

"Shrill." Pff. Give me passionate answers over petulant defensiveness any day.