In politics, we're not supposed to talk about style over substance, especially when it comes to women. But no male politician would get away with what Hillary pulled in Selma. Moreover, speaking style is not irrelevant to leadership, as Americans have noted the past six years.

Tone. Voice. Cadence. These may seem superficial, less important than the substance of a candidate's message. But they suggest something innate about the person speaking -- awareness (or the lack thereof) and the ability to merge with an audience, to persuade, calm, inspire and reassure. Or not.

When a person's style distracts from substance, we have a problem. When a person's voice makes listeners recoil and want to be somewhere else, that person is not going to be an effective communicator.

But what about substance? What was Clinton thinking when she hijacked a gospel hymn and effectively mocked her audience? Her speech exposed not just an incompetent ear, but disrespect for the people gathered.

Would Clinton affect a Brooklyn accent with a Jewish audience remembering the Holocaust? OY VEY, LEMME TELLYA, HONEY!

The female Clinton, unlike her husband, simply lacks a feel for communication, no matter how many hugs she delivers. While President Clinton could become one with his audience -- his slightly hoarse voice conveying so much empathy that the hungry wanted to feed him -- Sen. Clinton's voice sends mannequins into a fetal curl. She is the rain to Bill's parade.

It may not be Hillary's fault that her voice sounds like it was fashioned from metal, but it is her fault that she sounds like a car alarm when she's handed a microphone. It is her fault that she panders -- badly -- to her audiences.

Her performance last weekend in Selma revealed more than atonality. Like a warped bell, Hillary Clinton rings untrue.