Actually, that is exactly what I am about to do. This blog is likely to be the only hit that results from an improbable google search request for both "Bob Knight" and "Hillary Clinton" in one article. So why would I even consider placing the two very different personalities side by side on this computer screen? It is because, political and athletic interests aside, I have spent much time studying these two people. I have noted their differences and come to a conclusion.
Bob Knight has made it known that he does not care what people think of him, yet he draws a good-sized fan base from all over the country; and Hillary Clinton is perpetually conscious of her public image, yet she draws an equally good-sized hater base from all over the country.
It seems that people would rather have Bob Knight tell them to kiss his ass than have Hillary Clinton kiss theirs.
Obviously, I cannot speak on behalf of all Knight fans or Hillary haters. Still, I can point out that the public is not stupid, and the difference seems to be a matter of genuineness. Bob Knight is real, and people like that; Hillary only acts real, and people see through it.
During the time for which he is best known--his years at Indiana University--Bob Knight did not tell the administration, his players, the press or fans what they wanted to hear. He was the poster face for blunt comments and his list of questionable remarks is lengthy.
In Indianapolis Monthly in December, 1982, he says: "I fortunately have never worried about irritating people."
It cannot be argued that Knight was an aggressive coach, demanding excellence both on the court and in life. His expectations were high, and his athletes were pushed to work harder than they ever had and probably ever would. The IU administration alleged that his determination for success led to unnecessary physical sanctions towards players, and he was asked to leave the university. Knight did not disguise his frustration withMyles Brand's decision, and neither did the thousands who gathered to protest outside Assembly Hall or hang banners around campus that read "Bob Knight is God" or "Mr. Knight 4 Prez."
Knight did not rally these troops, they formed on their own in support of The General, a man who was real. They respected his authenticity.
"I guess that people are attracted, or whatever, to a no bullshit guy who tells people to shove it up their ass when he thinks it's appropriate," Knight told Esquire, March 1988.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has devoted her entire self to popularity and is always willing to change her appearance or ideas for a stronger supportive base. This has been evident over and over again, starting with a sudden emphasis in femininity that came directly after constituent criticisms that she appeared too masculine to be First Lady. It could be said that within a day, Clinton was able to become more of a woman and demonstrate a more caring, maternal side that previously had been hidden (if it even existed). Clinton has learned that voters prefer this feminine strategy and therefore has devoted much of her presidential campaign to the theme "Women Changing America."
After winning the New Hampshire primary on January 8, Clinton told supporters: "I come here tonight with a very full heart. I have listened to you and in the process I found my own voice."
How did she find such inner qualities through the help of strangers?
She didn't. But she is willing to do and say almost anything to be liked--when the war was popular, she supported it; when it wasn't, she denied such support. The constant changes in her hairstyle, dress and recent botox injections all indicate a conscious effort towards public approval.
Knight wouldn't change for IU officials even after given a zero-tolerance policy, but Clinton would change for just about anyone. And you sure as hell wouldn't hear her tell anyone, at least in public, to "shove it." So do we appreciate that Hillary is so willing to adapt for us? Overwhelmingly, the answer is no, because in doing so she becomes a mystery, and noone can be certain who Hillary Clinton really is.
She is fake, he is real. People know the difference. Maybe Knight should run for president--at least we'd know who we were voting for.
1 comment:
They are totally different, and yet the same in the fact that you either hate or love each of them, there is no in-between, the difference lies in what is explained in the article in that people know why they love The General, and the people that love Hillary are only bandwagon people that like the things she says because she tells them what they want to hear...I would not doubt that if they ran against eachother, Knight would lose, but thats just because people can't handle being told how it is as opposed to what they wish to hear. Knight is done now, and I miss it... All good things come to an end, too bad Hillary, win or lose, won't be in that category.
Post a Comment