Free Media And HRC: A Skeptic

A reader writes:

I am curious as to why you don't credit the HUGE amount of free media beginning with [Monday night's] nightly news broadcasts, presumably local news at 11 (I don't know as I didn't see), and all of [Tuesday]'s morning programs leading with the emotional moment? Was network television not blanketed for the final run up to primary day with video of an emotional, vulnerable, "human" Hillary Clinton desperately explaining how much she cares??? Is there really no correlation to the incredible amount of free media this moment received and the strong support she enjoyed among women? Or am I just being cynical that the woman who has been in the national spotlight since 1991, not cracking once (so far as I can remember, but maybe there was something) just happened to show her human, feminine, vulnerable side the day before the New Hampshire primary (three hours prior to a series of already scheduled network anchor interviews) and four days after losing Iowa where she surprisingly didn't have enough appeal among women?

Comments

Good point. The cracking wasn't a stunt, I don't think, but served the same purpose as one (like Bill's saxophone).

Posted by lampwick | January 9, 2008 4:31 PM

Have you every know the Clintons to do anything without a poll?

How can you think this was not contrived when they poll test where they should go on vacation?

You people are really idiots. No wonder the Clintons and the democratic party never wins anything. Talk about stupid!

This woman is a cunning politician who will stop at nothing to get what she wants!

Posted by Texas Star | January 9, 2008 4:44 PM

Have you every known the Clintons to do anything without a poll?

How can you think this was not contrived when they poll test where they should go on vacation?

You people are really idiots. No wonder the Clintons and the democratic party never win anything. Talk about stupid!

This woman is a cunning politician who will stop at nothing to get what she wants!

Posted by Texas Star | January 9, 2008 4:45 PM

Uh...didn't the Clintons win two Presidential and two US Senate races? Texas is kinda dumb.

Posted by Steady | January 9, 2008 5:05 PM

The Democrats lost the House and Senate seats due to the Clinton's in the 1990's.Remember the Dems just got both houses back in 2006. A Clinton election would mean a down ticket disaster for the Dems. A Clinton nomination means a Republican House and Senate. I predicted it first...

Posted by Steadys wrong | January 9, 2008 6:06 PM

How was the ganging up on Hillary in the Dem debate any different from the way the GOPers ganged up on Romney? It wasn't.

Hillary wants to play victim, because she is the "most experienced" victim in the race.

If she were a man, she would be expected to fight back and not lose her cool. She lost her cool and women swooned.

Fine, ladies, you want her, you'll get her. Enjoy losing to the GOP.

Posted by Gary | January 9, 2008 7:09 PM

CNN is shameless in their support of Hillary Clinton. They continually over and over showed the Hillary moment right before the primary in New Hampshire. They also continually stabbed JRE in the back with what he said which was really nothing about Hillary at all. I am beginning to think that CNN is as bad or worse than Fox News with their biases. I am a yellow dog democrat, but I may start watching Fox to get some real political coverage that is not biased.

Posted by Rosie | January 9, 2008 7:20 PM

Regardless of the precise reason the news focused so much on Hillary's "emotional moment," and regardless of what the pundits and journalists thought of how it made her appear (though Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd give us an idea) the fact that the media turned it into a "news event" helped Hillary in NH.

Someone skimming the headlines or flipping the channels ends up reading/hearing nothing but Hillary Clinton ... Hillary Clinton ... Hillary Clinton.

If there's any truth to the accusations that Obama made himself less available to the media in those few days before the primary, you have a situation where the race was not about Obama vs. Clinton, but rather a referendum on Clinton herself. If you handed out a ballot to a bunch of Democrats that just said "Hillary? Yes / No", the voters would overwhelmingly pick "Yes." And that's what happened.

Posted by Tyro | January 9, 2008 7:46 PM

Quite frankly, from the moment she lost until she won, HRC and her campaign dominated the news cycle. It was, in fact, a slow motion train wreck and everyone was watching. Oh sure, folks averted their eyes for a second to acknowledge Obama's crowds, but let's be real--the WORLD was watching and waiting for the implosion.

Posted by Keith | January 9, 2008 7:55 PM

And Ambers, if I recall, your own reporting showed that Hillary's strategy coming out of Iowa was: "Play the gender card. Hard."

Posted by Lincoln Duncan | January 9, 2008 9:17 PM

I work with women like Hillary. The minute things get tough they start the "Damsel in Distress" routine and everyone runs to rescue them. Grow up and get some big girl panties. Bill came to the rescue after the Philly debate and he did it again after the ABC debate on Saturday. After watching Bill Clinton launch a personal assault on Obama on Charlie Ros/NH after the campaign machine launched their assault in Iowa I will never vote for Hillary. My vote is a gift from those that came before me: Sojourner, Fannie Lou Hammer, Medgar, Malcolm and on and on. The underlying theme of their rhetoric against Obama is that he is not qualified. This man graduated from two of the best schools in the nation. Give me a break!!! Moreover, the racist stench is enough to choke on. They have gotton so bad even Donna Brazille spoke out on CNN. I will not dishonor my ancestors or my elders by ever giving another Clinton my vote.

Posted by RealB.G. | January 9, 2008 9:46 PM

She's human? Who knew?

She has those 35 years of experience and public service, yet she only found her "voice" in the last 3 days?

I'd say she found her victimhood not her voice. That being said, her victimhood has served her well in the past. I'm just not so sure that it will get her to 270 electoral votes when voters in the general election consider that they are electing a commander in chief.

Posted by Please Make them go away. | January 9, 2008 10:21 PM

my wife thinks that Hillary's misty moment was genuine (although she does not plan to vote for her in our primary), while I feel that it was milked a bit, particularly since she immediately segued into an attack on Obama. As an Edwards supporter I continue to believe that he would be the strongest candidate we could field in the general election, but I despair that circumstances have conspired to deny him what would be the shot at being a serious contender. As Mark Shields said tonight, he has a very high favorability quotient among Democrats and in an ordinary election cycle (one without two "historic" candidates) he would be doing much better. I feel in my gut that if Hillary is the nominee we are going to have real bad problems in the general. I am very depressed that I nothing I can do will probably be able to stop this slow-motion train wreck for the Democratic party in a year when it should have been able to think about a possible realignment level election. But I grew up in Oklahoma, home of Will Rogers, who, as a Democrat, reminded us that he belonged to "no organized party."

Posted by popudem | January 9, 2008 10:35 PM

Hey Gary -- If she were a man she'd be expected not to lose her cool, fair enough. But when she maintains her cool she's accused of being a robot. She's smart, she's knowledgeable, she's capable. And yet all she does is inspire comments like, "I work with women like her..." or, "Fine, ladies..." Patronizing, sexist, and gross.

By the way, Real B.G., the racist evidence just isn't there for the NH vote. Look at the numbers. Obama got all the voters polling suggested he would. So did Edwards. Right on target with the poll numbers. But Clinton got extra turnout. Racism may be an issue down the line, but in this case, not so much.

Posted by Equalizer | January 10, 2008 1:46 AM

I'm more concerned about the lies and misleading statements coming from the Clinton camp (including Hillary and Bill) down the stretch.
The media uncritically reported their arguments without a rebuttal until it was too late. Part of that is surely the Obama campaign's fault.

Posted by Mike | January 10, 2008 2:41 AM

Obama supporters are a whiny and petulant bunch of thin skinned fabulists. Whatever type of crackup Clinton was supposedly headed to would have been mild compared to what will happen when Obama loses another state. I urge everyone to take a break from the blogosphere on February 6.

Posted by only childs for Obama | January 10, 2008 3:54 AM

Hillary's got a lock on the weepy chick vote as well as the racist redneck vote. Excellent.

Posted by Bill and Hill | January 10, 2008 7:15 AM