Presidents, that ringing telephone, and military service
By now the consensus is that Hillary’s red phone ad probably helped her comeback on Super Tuesday Two.
The ad was controversial but traditional, in the mold of a famous ad Walter Mondale used against Gary Hart in 1984, and the LBJ vs. Goldwater “daisy” ad of 1964. The suggestion is that, if Obama is elected President, he’d make some snap foreign policy decision that would endanger your children’s lives. Or fail to make one that would protect them.
The questions being asked about the ad now fall into the headings of whether it was too nasty and/or too-fearmongering, too potentially useful for the McCain campaign, and just how effective it actually was in helping Hillary. Obama, of course, believes it was also incorrect in its implications, and that the previous “red phone” moment on which he chooses to focus—Iraq—was handled incorrectly by Hillary, who voted for the war.
I’m not sure Obama gets what the ad is actually about, which is toughness and protection and quick judgments, not slow ones. Forget the fact that the sort of moment the ad posits isn’t the way foreign policy decisions usually work. After 9/11, we know only too well it’s the way they sometimes work, and the way the might need to work at some moment in the future.
Obama is not perceived as tough enough to handle such a moment; at least that’s the perception the ad wants to foster. And, by extrapolation, the great self-styled bringer-together-conciliator (forget that his actual record indicates little ability to do either) isn’t tough enough to defend us in general, isn’t tough enough to do whatever might need to be done as Commander-in-Chief.
Hillary is perceived that way. And I think it’s worthy of note that everyone takes it as a matter of course that a woman candidate (who has never served in the military) is more credible as potential Commander-in-Chief than a man (who in this case has also never served in the military).
I’m not advancing the old “chickenhawk” argument that a person must have served in order to be Commander in Chief. However, it helps in that task to have some sort of knowledge of how the military works, and some sort of experience with it. That sort of knowledge and experience used to be more common among Americans, but with the demise of the draft and the post-Vietnam decline of the teaching of military history, it’s becoming more of a specialized field among the population in this country.
I wrote about this lack and its possible ramifications for the future of this country here. In that post, I quoted military historian and classicist Victor Davis Hanson, and I will do so again:
”¦by ignoring history, the modern age is free to interpret war as a failure of communication, of diplomacy, of talking””as if aggressors don’t know exactly what they’re doing.
Does that not describe Obama perfectly? Perhaps not coincidentally, since Obama was born in 1961, his education in American history would have been an entirely post-Vietnam and post-volunteer-military phenomenon. I believe he would be the first major Presidential candidate for whom this is so.
Yes, the Hillary ad is also about Obama’s perceived lack of foreign policy experience in general. But I think there’s no question its underlying assumptions involve decisions regarding threat and defense—potential military ones, that is—rather than negotiations or diplomacy, which Obama seems to think would be his strong suit.
Rightly or wrongly, Hillary is perceived as tougher than Obama. And her recent ability to come back from what might have seemed a knockdown is indeed formidable.
Of course, McCain’s history indicates a sort of toughness that trumps even Hillary’s. But that’s not her concern right now; Obama is.
Although Commander-in-Chief is a civilian role, and there has never been a requirement of military service to become President (nor should there be), our very first President was a famous General, starting a tradition in that direction. Take a look at the military history of each of our Presidents; you may be surprised to see how very many had military experience, some of a very intense order. And this is true although the preacetime draft was a phenomenon only for a few decades in mid-20th century. (the wartime draft was of extremely minor importance during the Civil War, and although it operated for WWI and WWII, this would only have affected the military service of Presidential candidates starting in the middle of the twentieth century, as well).
Bill Clinton appears to have been our first semi-draft-dodger President. But even he was highly cognizant of the possibly negative future political ramifications of his lack of service. Gore, Bush, and Kerry all served during Vietnam (whatever you may think of the quality of their service, or in the case of Kerry, its aftermath), and all three were volunteers. Bush Sr. was a bona fide war hero, as was JFK. Carter was a Naval Officer, LBJ in the Naval Reserve. From Truman to Bush Sr. there is an unbroken line of service of some sort or other (Reagan was in the military but entertained the troops; Gore was a military journalist).
The six Presidents prior to Truman, however, did not serve in the Armed Forces. That includes the final one, FDR, who was Commander-in-Chief during World War II without having served in the military—but who had, however, held the post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy during World War I.
Before that string of six non-military Presidents we have Teddy Roosevelt, another warrior (and the only President to have received the Medal of Honor, although it was awarded posthumously in 2001). Prior to that there is a long and almost unbroken line of Presidents with military experience. In fact, out of a grand total of twenty-four previous Presidents, only four lack some sort of military service.
Even Lincoln, who’s not generally thought of as a soldier (his law background is a great deal more well-known) served as a Captain in the Illinois militia in the Black Hawk War. Various other early Presidents were famous military men: Jackson and Grant come to mind.
My point is not to say that military service is necessary to be an effective Commander-in-Chief; it is not. But it used to be considered a plus, a sign of a certain type of experience and rigor. My guess is that this sort of perception is becoming outdated, although in the general election McCain will probably try to capitalize on it.
This ad of Hillary’s is an attempt to refashion the old arguments in new packaging. When neither candidate has served, the question isn’t about military experience—its about character and general toughness. And Hillary is banking on the fact that there’s no reason a woman can’t be perceived to have more than a man.
Interestingly none of the candidates (McCain included) have any real executive or command experience. (McCain as an aviator had only a small role as a commander).
If we ask could Hillary be a Margaret Thatcher and order the fleet out to the Falklands we have no prior experience with her to rely on. Obama has no experience as well that would indicate he could make decisions in a situation requiring rapid choice between undesirable paths.
McCain at least has been exposed to the need for rapid decisionmaking as a pilot and the realities of the world as a POW. His shortcomings are largely a lack of large scale strategic and management ability that Eisenhower had in spades.
Soldiers have become like a farmers, a small class of people doing a necessary service that most people fail to appreciate. Once upon a time, everyone knew a farmer too.
As for Presidents, I think it helps to have some idea what it means to send people off to fight. What it means in terms other than the political ramifications of the decision.
An Obama supporter told me that we did not need to go to war anymore, we were evolved beyond that sort of brutality. I told her that she might be evolved, but the world is full of people who certainly are not. I think this is the point of the ad, Obama lives in a world where 3 AM phone calls don’t even happen.
‘Red phone’ moments do occur in real life.
Here’s one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WztB6HzXxI
(McCain as an aviator had only a small role as a commander).
I understand that he commanded several air squadrens after the war. So he does have such experience–he wasn’t just a pilot (which is an executive position on a small scale).
Furthermore, his work on the surge (and perhaps other projects) could be considered executive experience, at least in part.
With Hillary, we have her health care plan and her “management” of Slick.
Did you notice that in the ad the phone rang six times before anyone picked it up?! What does that say about her readiness? But, I guess you don’t think about things like that when you’re intent on taking a cheap shot to “scare up” some votes out of desparation.
Well, kamper, if Osama were still alive, it would be hard to convince him Bush did not pick up the phone with a resolve to make hard decisions to defend our nation.
…by ignoring history, the modern age is free to interpret war as a failure of communication, of diplomacy, of talking–as if aggressors don’t know exactly what they’re doing.
The case can be made that morally they don’t know, and that surely appeals to this theraputic age. But those who have to live with the consequences must base their moral choices on the practicalities of what the aggressor will do.
I agree with Dave Moelling. *None of the candidates has ever run a substantial organization*, with the authority to make decisions and the knowledge that they will be accountable for the outcome.
Legislative experience, in which you are one of a hundred or more voices, is different from executive experience. So is “staff” experience, in which you are an advisor but not the final decision maker.
We’re electing a chief executive, not a chief policy wonk or a chief speechmaker, and I think this experience gap is a pretty scary one.
I venture to guess that dozens readers of this blog have more executive experience than do any of the candidates.
I remember Hillary’s husband getting a call in the middle of the night. It was from a CIA field officer in Afghanistan. It seems he had eyes on OBL and was asking for permission to take him out. We all know how that one turned out.
I think I want someone answering the red phone who wouldn’t make too hasty of a decision in a crisis. After all, such a situation is not a quiz show where the fastest contestant who hits the button wins the cash — snap decisions are not necessarily the best decisions.
It would probably be better to have someone in the Oval office who would at least give some careful thought for a few minutes before taking any action — and later consult with the Cabinet, Presidential advisors, even solicit opinion from a few respected outside experts, perhaps even some members of Congress — depending on the nature of the crisis — like Bush did when 9-11 hit the nation. Steady Eddie rather than Hasty Harry(or Harriet).
A far left socialist that pretends to be a pacifist that thinks that there is no time a war is right, put the US in a losing position. Whether we like it or not.
Blind pacifism, the kind that would remove our troops without letting them finish, would create the same kind of nihilism that has dogged the US since we walked off after winning vietnam. yes, we WON vietnam, the vietkong admitted that Tet was all they had left.
Everyone forgets what happend AFTER that. more than 100,000 in re-education camps (gulags).
According to the report of United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees, 1/3 of boat people died at sea by killing, storms, illness,and food shortage. Out of a total 250,000 mixture ages of men, women, and children.
The images of the burned girl that everyone assumed was americans wasnt americans.
the leftists of this country caused the drowning of whole families at sea..
but wait.. thats not all.. add another 150,000 when vietnam then invaded cambodia.. then the genocide started…
Children were taken from their parents and placed in separate forced labour camps. Factories, schools and universities were shut down; so were hospitals. Lawyers, doctors, teachers, engineers, scientists and professional people in any field (including the army) were murdered, together with their extended families. Religion was banned, all leading Buddhist monks were killed and almost all temples destroyed. Music and radio sets were also banned. It was possible for people to be shot simply for knowing a foreign language, wearing glasses, laughing, or crying. One Khmer slogan ran ‘To spare you is no profit, to destroy you is no loss.’
Civilian deaths in this period, from executions, disease, exhaustion and starvation, have been estimated at well over 2m.
so between all of it, when american walked away, around 3 million civilian people were systematically exterminated, drowned, and more…
really bizarre, is that we know what most of them look like as the khmer rouge photographed them before they tortured and killed them.
now we have a presidential candidate with the same understandinf for war and the promised desire to do the exact same thing that was done with vietnam.
the US lost 50,000 troops in vietnam.. (i think 8 women). the vietnamese army lost a lot more. and the khmer kept fighting and killing into the 80s.
the battle of gettysburg 23,000 on a side died in 3 days. (july 1 to july3)
the battle of normandy cost 200,000 lives in a one month period. 81,000 in the battle of the ardennes in about the same time..
looking at the numbers is staggering… i mean that no one today really understands to what degree what happened… though they think they do…
Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, and if possible iran, creates a one country wall in which unlimited untracked weapons and explosives, cant be transported. anyone look at a map lately? why does russia care about georgia, but not larger other countries right near it? why make all the noise against the US in the caspian? why set a bomb in spain to put a sociliast government in place that would let shipmentts unhindrered through the canal?
when the US said it was going to remove iran from thes games, what was being asserted was the last land link to all of russias highest paying military customers. after all, if you look it up they are the biggest arms dealers in the world.
land is the only way that you can move unlimited amounts unhindered. russia has a natural resources economy, and you can only raise the prices of such a few ways. one is to remover and destabilze any competitors who are willing to enter the market at a lower price point. that would be africa. so thats why there is tons of ak47s, and explosives and advice and such there. they dont get it togehter, they cant work for cheap and grow and sell the richest deposits of minerals in the world. without iran as a land bridge, how do you supply the sudan? (darfur), how do you move weapons ot hammas? syria?
turkey sided with us because unlike the others turky has a rich economy in which it makes much more from labor adding value, than it does from raping the land.
there is more, but the point i am trying to assert with informaiton behind it is that this game is as was written. not about anything that anyone is discussing.
clauswitz explains war the best. in short, war happens when one entity tells another entity to do something and the other entity does not comply and the first entity does not back down.
thats it… wwii, hitler and stalin said give it all to me… iraq, different purpose but one entity asked another entity to comply, it didnt, the result is the naturla course since each always consideres their point to be crucial and critical.
to arbitrarily pull out troops would collapse that. turkey would flip to russias side as there wouldnt be a freindly face around them. and isreal would be completely naked and bare. in a way it hasnt been since the 6 day war, and other similar events.
now if you think the US has trouble now with iraq, when we pull out we are going to be faced with the choice of responding and protecting isreal, or letting it get wiped off the earth.
there would not be one freindly anything around her if we leave.
when the right hand is flashy, look at what the left hand is doing.
socialists claim to create or orchestrate history, the west reacts to history…
there are other major issues going on that no one is really talking about… do a search on islam gang rapes… read about them in sweden, norway, UK, australia, and in the US too… not to mention we have had some nasty cases of race hate to the default oppressors (in socialist parlance). one brutal case had them skinning a woman alive in a bathtub of bleach (i think her name was mclaughlin or maclaughlin).
none of the candidates are addressing real issues since the public doesnt knwo the half of whats out there unless they read foreign press using news in the US to distract their people from news in their country. or part of the droning of hate america. in 91 or 92 forbes had an article running in which they pointed out that russias cold, diamonds and such was gutted… and the end of the artilce they pointed out that russia owned 40 of the larges western publishing houses… maybe thats why we get crap self help, and other stuff and nothing else penetrates?
there is some really bad times coming. you can see it if you arent looking at the wrong hand. the housing thing is still slamming… opec refuses to raise production, chavez now has a war with columbia (thats what they say), and more than 20,000 troops moved into position. (maybe he should have een more careful when calling friends)
so the oil from there will get tied up, or at least driven up the uncertainty which drives up the cost.
look at google at the dow… we have lost a whole year or more of profit… and yet the news says what? the national id designed by a head of kgb and another man who created the stasi, is supposed to go in effect (like the one in england).
and now there is SENATE BILL No.1322 which seeks to remove the ban on communist indoctrination in schools.
This bill would delete provisions that prohibit a teacher giving instruction in a school or on property belonging to an agency included in the public school system from teaching communism with the intent to indoctrinate or to inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism. The bill would also delete provisions that a teacher may be dismissed from employment if he or she teaches communism in that way.
we can thank California Democratic Sen. Alan Lowenthal for this one
hey… but heck, lets not even mention that, and not let anyone in to ask those kinds of quesiotns.
anyone check out the provision in the law up that would allow for suspension of all laws at the need of homland security without judicial review?
SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.
Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Waiver-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary´s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction–
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.´.
how about obamas law to give away 840 BILLION of US money (during the bad times coming) and when they are complaingin our infrastructure is failing (as money was diverted to social programs)
sometimes watching discussions is like wathing people living in a nutshell and calling themselves kings of infinite space. the discussions arent even in any real context of what the issues are
to which i agree with the quote.
…by ignoring history, the modern age is free to interpret war as a failure of communication, of diplomacy, of talking–as if aggressors don’t know exactly what they’re doing.
the battle of antietam.
The Lefties don’t care. What do they care if some Vietnamese or Iraqis die. It doesn’t bother their consciences.. because they’re already convinced that no matter what view they take, that view is the moral high ground.
The Left does not care about the slaughter of people. What the Left cares about is to avoid putting at risk their comfortable little world by involving themselves in military action.
or even worse.. having to struggle to maintain that which they inherited.
What the left is worried about Vince, is having to make the distinction between good and evil.
Correction:
I mentioned the tension in south america (and that they said it was already a war), well just announced the war was over before it started. columbia apologized for going over a border and taking out the head of the leftist group sending troops over the border into columbia to kill people.
Latin American Crisis Resolved
Colombia Apologizes At Regional Summit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703063.html?hpid=topnews
Character and general toughness….
columbia apologized …..
the smug left….
great posts tonite, comforting….
I was thinking about the last century, starting big with the genocide of the Armenians, then record setting massacres, incredible in scope if you have any faith at all in basic human nature as compassionate; then through the middle of the century, followed by North Korea, Vietnam, all the cultural and religious conflicts emanating directly and indirectly as byproducts of islamic/leftist influence or direct aggression; the sordid U.N., the suffering of innocents in Darfur.
Naivete, then betrayal, leading to bitterness. It’s absolutely boggling, when you realize that the inmates are again taking over the asylum. In the face of this over the last 100 years, to see the nature of the characters that the Democrats have been running since Carter, culminating with a radical left-wing southern lawyer politician, and a grinning in your face, quite up front manchurian candidate; America will continue to carry the rest of the world into the future if demographics don’t destroy the republic. Gun control… car burning riots in France, school girl beheadings in Thailand, ad infinitum; Jeruselum, don’t give up your gun… The rest of us have to help by becoming more hard nosed. We can’t lose our character, give into fatigue, or forget how important is justice.
“…by ignoring history, the modern age is free to interpret war as a failure of communication, of diplomacy, of talking–as if aggressors don’t know exactly what they’re doing.”
Well, I do have military experience and I believe we go to war – today – due to some sort of failure, because we are not (or at least no longer) an expansionist or imperialist nation. We don’t go to war as a first resort, we go to war when more palatable and economical means have failed to achieve desired results.
The thing is, in life, change happens. Failure happens. It happens to the best of us. It’s that kind of world. Leadership is dealing with losses and failures, and leading hard evolutionary transformation to adjust to a hostile changing environment, as much or more than it is about maintaining some kind of consumer-brand happiness. Sometimes, making hard choices as a national leader means war.
Actually, Neo, a case could be made (and was) for Grover Cleveland being a semi-draft dodger as well. He paid a substitute to serve for him during the Civil War, as was permitted at the time, but it was used against him later, especially since other contemporary presidents (Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison) had honorable, and sometimes very substantial, records as Union officers.
As you and others note, military experience is no guarantee of presidential success, nor is lack of it necessarily a disadvantage. Lincoln’s brief service during the Black Hawk War probably had little carryover into the massively more complex issues and operations of the Civil War. While FDR’s duties as a civilian service head during WW1 certainly didn’t hurt him during WW2, they could not have adequately prepared him for the challenges of running a multifront war with often fractious allies against strong and determined enemies. His prior service as Governor of NY and his earlier terms as President probably helped more. At the same time, Grant was a flop as a (peacetime) president, with both of his terms beset by corruption.
This will be the first election since 1960 where the winner will be a sitting US senator, from a body known for its deliberative abilities, not its decisiveness. Although McCain’s military background did give him some experience in running an organization, a squadron commander has plenty of people above him telling him what to do. I give him the edge, and he will get my vote, but I can’t help but think that there’s a good reason most of the recent presidents have been former governors (all since Carter, except GHW Bush, who of course served as RWR’s VP). Military experience is great, but it’s high-level senior executive experience that really counts.
A couple of additional comments based on previous postings:
“…school girl beheadings in Thailand…” PD, if it’s the same one I remember, it happened in Indonesia, not Thailand, specifically Sulawesi. Nasty business, and the perp didn’t even get much of a sentence (5 years, if memory serves).
“…the battle of gettysburg 23,000 on a side died in 3 days…” Total casualties on both sides at Gettysburg were just under 50,000 of the 160,000+ engaged, with a bit less than 8,000 of these being KIA. The other 42,000 or so were WIA, captured, and MIA. 8,000 is still a lot of dead soldiers, and the overall casualty rate is appalling, but not that uncommon for the Civil War. You’re right about today’s casualties being much lower. By comparison, we’re not even halfway to Gettysburg’s deaths after almost 5 years in Iraq. Better tactics, better training, and better equipment pay off.
I think that being in the military gives one experience in being controlled by leaders, events and resources outside of your control – and you learn how to adapt and overcome, or just cut through the stupid to get to the objective and win. You can learn it elsewhere, but never as fast and aging.
Yes, William, the military teaches you exactly that. It certainly did teach me, a 21-year old 2LT with precisely 0 experience and almost 40 infantrymen under my control, how to adapt to fluid situations (my active duty time was in the late 70s and early 80s, so my main daily concern was shortages of just about everything, not combat), and I did learn how to “cut through stupid” and get things done. You grow up fast under those circumstances, and even faster if you’re in combat. No argument there. But what I think most Americans want in a president is someone who won’t be controlled by events, but will be able to shape them and get others to react to the U.S. in a way that’s favorable to us. He won’t always succeed, but he has to try.
waltj:
“…school girl beheadings in Thailand…” PD, if it’s the same one I remember, it happened in Indonesia, not Thailand, specifically…”
Fyi, it was specifically Thailand, I don’t remember distinct details other than I believe it was a pair of 14 year olds on their way to somewhere, and I don’t remember seeing anything later about the attackers being caught… the one in Indonesia is another I don’t remember reading about, anyway, just to clarify.
Apparently, none of this is real to the democrats, or they would make the mental connections beyond “negotiations, blah blah”….
waltj:
“Yes, William, the military teaches you exactly that. It certainly did teach me, a 21-year old 2LT with precisely 0 experience and almost 40 infantrymen under my control, how to adapt to fluid situations “
That’s where it pays to have a good PSG.
That VDH quote is so spot-on it’s scary.
Whether military experience is important or not seems to depend on who’s running. It also seems to depend on the war.
George McGovern, George HW, and Bob Dole both served in WWII, and none made an issue of it in their respective campaigns. For John Kerry, and now John McCain, it’s the centerpiece of their campaigns.
For the Democrats, military experience wasn’t important when it was Clinton against George HW or Bob Dole. It was important when John Kerry was their candidate, but not so much now.
The for Republicans, it’s important now that John McCain is the nominee.
Sigh.
I think I’ll close by simply reminding everyone that neither Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Delano Roosevelt served in the military yet are considered our greatest wartime presidents (yes I know Lincoln showed up one day for militia duty or something but that doesn’t count).
Interesting that every man mentioned in the post is last-name, while the only woman mentioned in the post is first-name. Hmmm.
What’s interesting is if you go to their websites , you’ll see the same thing.
Hmmmmmm duh.
Hillary almost exclusively uses her first name when she campaigns for a reason: if she used “Clinton,” we’d immediately think of Bill.
And, of course in these parts, we refer to the messiah as Barrak Hussein Obama. And we take no crap off of anybody for doing so.
I prefer to call him Barack Hussein Winfrey
Did anyone else notice the line in Hillary’s ad that when the 3 a.m. phone call comes, we should want “someone who knows the military”? This is re-writing history on a scale worthy of Stalin himself, because when Bill ‘n Hill were in the White House several of the Usenet discussion groups (forerunners of blogs, for those too young to remember) reported that Hillary in particular “loathed” the military (Chelsea’s words to a friend, IIRC) and even ordered that service members posted to the White House wear civilian clothes instead of their uniforms.
Funny how Hillary’s “loathing” of the military while she was in the WH has now been airbrushed into “knows the military”–a perfect turn of phrase that can be interpreted favorably by both ultra-Leftists and more moderate Dems.
“Fyi, it was specifically Thailand…” Thanks, PD, I hadn’t heard about that one. I’ll check it out. The one in Indonesia was three Christian high school girls beheaded on their way from school in Poso, Sulawesi, in 2005, I believe. I currently live in Indonesia and generally work in and around SE Asia, so I like to keep good “SA” on what’s going on around me.
“That’s where it pays to have a good PSG”. It does, and I did. He taught me well: “Sir, it would probably be a good idea if you did x instead of the y that you appear to be planning, and here’s why…” If you watch and listen, you can learn. Not every young officer figures this out.
When world changes so quickly as it does now previous experience can be misleading, it is more burden than asset. What actually matters is personal integrity and steadfast, immovable moral principles, clear worldview and iron will to implement these principles. Hillary it seems has no principles at all. If she will win nomination, red telephone theme would have advantage for McCain, not for her.
I think that there are different varieties of toughness
— Hillary strikes me as:
Sharp
Brittle
Edgy
Hard-hearted
Vicious
— aka “A Bitch”.
The historically desirable presidential toughness, however, seems more like:
Hard-shelled
Imperturbable
Stoic
Nonplussed
Rock-steady
I think the difference in applicable adjectives carries the difference well, and underlies one of the very many reasons I believe Hillary should not be president under any circumstances.