I'm not the first to associate these two names. How truly sad is it that Senator Clinton herself has done more than anyone else could have to make the association valid.
You remember the story. Two fierce competitors in the world of ice skating. At the 1994 US Figure Skating championships, Harding's ex-husband and a co-conspirator assaulted Nancy Kerrigan - forcing her to withdraw from competition due to injury. Harding claims she was a victim of a plot and violent abuse by her former husband.
The US Figure Skating Association came to another conclusion:
The USFSA concluded that Harding knew about the attack before it happened and displayed "a clear disregard for fairness, good sportsmanship and ethical behavior".
Harding's supporters (and she does have them) are mostly white, female, lower income...That's not a BAD thing in America...it's just eerily familiar.
When I heard Senator Clinton mention Bobby Kennedy I was following her train of thought: that historic election contests have gone on into June. What I can't understand is why she thought it was a good idea to mention the 1968 campaign.
The reasoning didn't just occur to her. It is now central to her campaign. The fact that she didn't realize how awful that particular analogy is or how it could backfire on her is as disturbing to me as the remark itself. It was a moment of poor judgment, poorly considered strategy, and horrible reasoning blurted out in public. Seasoned journalist Daniel Schorr called her on it on NPR this morning and he's right. We can assume she knew (because she SHOULD have known - which is equally important) exactly what she was saying.
It's understandable that a long campaign could impair one's judgement or cloud one's reasoning. But if the unthinkable were to happen now...it must be laid at her door.
The Secret Service and the FBI must now be checking all leads - including possible conspiracies from opponents.
Please, Senator Clinton. PLEASE! I never hoped to see you like this.
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Poison Penn
Washington Post: Clinton's Chief Strategist Steps Down
"Moneyball" only works if you study the right metrics and the game remains static.
For a Moneyball campaigner like Penn, humanity is only a metric and his combative style blew out the good work Candidate Clinton did to humanize herself in debates with Obama.
The Post comment that he kept running toward the general election proves what I've believed; that Clinton has been running to the right instead of running to win the Democratic base. Penn is THE reason the party is split.
I worked in a ratings driven business for years and I learned a lot about reading surveys - the polling data of the commercial market. I also remember being pounded by consultants with numbers that "proved" things I knew were at best unprovable and at worst, dead wrong. In general terms, these statistics are impossible to argue with. So the executives smile and nod and you got automated radio stations programmed by people a thousand miles from your home.
Oh, the Humanity? I don't see any relevant numbers on that.
When he signed up with Hillary Clinton as chief strategist, some Democrats were concerned about his relatively hawkish views on foreign policy -- he is staunchly pro-Israel and centrist -- and his tendency to keep an eye toward the general election rather than on the primaries.
Penn, a sometimes rumpled and often argumentative figure, struggled from the start with the awkward management structure of the Clinton campaign. Tensions escalated with each of her defeats: Some complained that he was too data-driven and obstinate, and he was blamed for the failure to "humanize" the candidate in the early days of the race.
"Moneyball" only works if you study the right metrics and the game remains static.
For a Moneyball campaigner like Penn, humanity is only a metric and his combative style blew out the good work Candidate Clinton did to humanize herself in debates with Obama.
The Post comment that he kept running toward the general election proves what I've believed; that Clinton has been running to the right instead of running to win the Democratic base. Penn is THE reason the party is split.
I worked in a ratings driven business for years and I learned a lot about reading surveys - the polling data of the commercial market. I also remember being pounded by consultants with numbers that "proved" things I knew were at best unprovable and at worst, dead wrong. In general terms, these statistics are impossible to argue with. So the executives smile and nod and you got automated radio stations programmed by people a thousand miles from your home.
Oh, the Humanity? I don't see any relevant numbers on that.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Death Endorses Clinton! NPR books Prodroom
Hillary Clinton offered a new slogan yesterday:
"I'm here for YOU!"
Once used effectively by DEATH, her new "Grim Reaper" persona is the answer to, "Yes We Can!" Clinton strategists feel that this truly is a battle for your soul.
For voters it's a matter of Damned if you do and Damned if you don't.
* * * * * *
Obama's campaign have adopted Hillary's former campaign strategy - called, "Oh Yeah?"
Early results prove that it's working as well for them as it did for her. Speculation is that they'll be moving to another Hillary position, "Stop picking on me" next week, which may be followed by, "Shut Up!" at a later date.
* * * * * *
NPR's, "All Things Considered" has booked ISDN studio time at The Production Room. This follows several recent bookings which were part of NPR programs, "Day to Day" and "Morning Edition".
BBC London have also booked The Production Room ISDN studio for several programs featured on the World Service.
Recent ISDN sessions also included work with advertising giants DDB, Chicago and Young and Rubicam, New York.
* * * * * *
Speaking of advertising and death, our new internet comedy short, "The Giant Go To Hell Tent Sale" is now previewing at dirtbox.tv - It's rated M for mature. Which seems really unlikely.
* * * * * *
The new film celebrating the Santa Barbara News Press fiasco, "Citizen McCaw" debuts at a sold out Arlington Theater tonight. You'll want to stand up and cheer!But it's probably safer to sit down and hide.
"I'm here for YOU!"
Once used effectively by DEATH, her new "Grim Reaper" persona is the answer to, "Yes We Can!" Clinton strategists feel that this truly is a battle for your soul.
For voters it's a matter of Damned if you do and Damned if you don't.
* * * * * *
Obama's campaign have adopted Hillary's former campaign strategy - called, "Oh Yeah?"
Early results prove that it's working as well for them as it did for her. Speculation is that they'll be moving to another Hillary position, "Stop picking on me" next week, which may be followed by, "Shut Up!" at a later date.
* * * * * *
NPR's, "All Things Considered" has booked ISDN studio time at The Production Room. This follows several recent bookings which were part of NPR programs, "Day to Day" and "Morning Edition".
BBC London have also booked The Production Room ISDN studio for several programs featured on the World Service.
Recent ISDN sessions also included work with advertising giants DDB, Chicago and Young and Rubicam, New York.
* * * * * *
Speaking of advertising and death, our new internet comedy short, "The Giant Go To Hell Tent Sale" is now previewing at dirtbox.tv - It's rated M for mature. Which seems really unlikely.
* * * * * *
The new film celebrating the Santa Barbara News Press fiasco, "Citizen McCaw" debuts at a sold out Arlington Theater tonight. You'll want to stand up and cheer!But it's probably safer to sit down and hide.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
America's News Media - Ready For This Election?
Hillary Clinton "Kitchen Sinked" Obama.
That phrase, meaning she threw everything, including the kitchen sink at Obama, will now take it's place next to "Swift Boating" in the American lexicon of colorful political shorthand.
How does one "kitchen sink" an opponent? One waits until the 11th hour of a campaign. Then one flacks the press with a rapid fire combination of commercial messages, language and positioning. Insinuations and half truths are spun with opinions that would make a pit-bull dog pause for breath.
When the flack began to fill the airwaves on Monday I noticed how little journalistic work or editorial control was actually being done. The need for speed had disabled deliberation. The Clinton campaign announced it's story and the reporters of the commercial media dutifully flocked to Texas and presented it to Senator Obama in the form of questions at a news conference.
This is the sorry state of our "popular" news media during the most important Presidential election in a generation. And by the way, this isn't just about Senator Clinton. This is about how news organizations have covered national stories since before and after 911. She is merely exploiting their obvious weakness.
Let's say that someone in the Obama camp were to state tomorrow morning that Hillary Clinton made a deal with a Mexican Mafia associate to deliver votes in Texas. Let's say the claim was based on a statement made by a convicted drug dealer in a Mexican jail. Shouldn't a reporter check out the source before delivering an accusatory quote and demanding a response? If the story can't be confirmed as fact shouldn't it be obvious that she need not defend herself to the press?
There is a reckless and irresponsible trend that is damaging the electoral process.
Watch dogging the candidates and their claims is what the news media should be doing. As things stand, The Clinton campaign gets away with the airy claim that they are merely "vetting" their opponent. And why shouldn't they? We don't have editors who stop rumor mongering or reporters who check facts before filing stories. What we're getting is press releases and short attention span theater.
"....John McCain is old. Senator Obama: Is he half black or half white? And Hillary Clinton is a bitch. More after this..."
America's largest news organizations have lost control of the election story. If they want it back, they're going to have to become damn good journalists.
UPDATE 3.6.08 (8:29 AM)
More information has come to light about a Canadian story picked up by US media regarding The Obama campaign and NAFTA. This new report from the Globe and Mail (Toronto) says that Stephen Harper's Chief of Staff, Ian Brodie, said the Clinton campaign, not the Obama campaign had tried to reassure the Canadian government about NAFTA.
"OTTAWA — The leak of a confidential diplomatic discussion that rocked the U.S. presidential campaign began with an offhand remark to journalists from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie."
"...Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."
The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report.
There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign. Robert Hurst, president of CTV News, declined to comment."
UPDATE: 3.6.08 (10:30 AM)
Check this out:
From ABC NEWS.COM - Political Punch by Jake Tapper - NAFTA Confusion
"Buried in a Canadian Press story about the NAFTA controversy is the intriguing notion that all of this began, as ABC News'Jennifer Parker has reported, with the Canadian Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie."
Read the linked Feb. 29 story by Jennifer Parker. ABC News knew the story went from Ian Brodie to CTV.
That phrase, meaning she threw everything, including the kitchen sink at Obama, will now take it's place next to "Swift Boating" in the American lexicon of colorful political shorthand.
How does one "kitchen sink" an opponent? One waits until the 11th hour of a campaign. Then one flacks the press with a rapid fire combination of commercial messages, language and positioning. Insinuations and half truths are spun with opinions that would make a pit-bull dog pause for breath.
When the flack began to fill the airwaves on Monday I noticed how little journalistic work or editorial control was actually being done. The need for speed had disabled deliberation. The Clinton campaign announced it's story and the reporters of the commercial media dutifully flocked to Texas and presented it to Senator Obama in the form of questions at a news conference.
This is the sorry state of our "popular" news media during the most important Presidential election in a generation. And by the way, this isn't just about Senator Clinton. This is about how news organizations have covered national stories since before and after 911. She is merely exploiting their obvious weakness.
Let's say that someone in the Obama camp were to state tomorrow morning that Hillary Clinton made a deal with a Mexican Mafia associate to deliver votes in Texas. Let's say the claim was based on a statement made by a convicted drug dealer in a Mexican jail. Shouldn't a reporter check out the source before delivering an accusatory quote and demanding a response? If the story can't be confirmed as fact shouldn't it be obvious that she need not defend herself to the press?
There is a reckless and irresponsible trend that is damaging the electoral process.
Watch dogging the candidates and their claims is what the news media should be doing. As things stand, The Clinton campaign gets away with the airy claim that they are merely "vetting" their opponent. And why shouldn't they? We don't have editors who stop rumor mongering or reporters who check facts before filing stories. What we're getting is press releases and short attention span theater.
"....John McCain is old. Senator Obama: Is he half black or half white? And Hillary Clinton is a bitch. More after this..."
America's largest news organizations have lost control of the election story. If they want it back, they're going to have to become damn good journalists.
UPDATE 3.6.08 (8:29 AM)
More information has come to light about a Canadian story picked up by US media regarding The Obama campaign and NAFTA. This new report from the Globe and Mail (Toronto) says that Stephen Harper's Chief of Staff, Ian Brodie, said the Clinton campaign, not the Obama campaign had tried to reassure the Canadian government about NAFTA.
"OTTAWA — The leak of a confidential diplomatic discussion that rocked the U.S. presidential campaign began with an offhand remark to journalists from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie."
"...Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."
The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report.
There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign. Robert Hurst, president of CTV News, declined to comment."
UPDATE: 3.6.08 (10:30 AM)
Check this out:
From ABC NEWS.COM - Political Punch by Jake Tapper - NAFTA Confusion
"Buried in a Canadian Press story about the NAFTA controversy is the intriguing notion that all of this began, as ABC News'Jennifer Parker has reported, with the Canadian Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie."
Read the linked Feb. 29 story by Jennifer Parker. ABC News knew the story went from Ian Brodie to CTV.
Friday, February 29, 2008
When the Winner Loses in America
Pity the New England Patriots.
They had a perfect season in the NFL and emerged undefeated on the eve of the Superbowl. Then the New York Giants changed the status of the "presumptive champion" from inevitable winner to LOSER.
America does not tolerate losers. Someone must take the blame for failure.
The rise of Barack Obama can mean only one thing in the minds of many. Hillary and her campaign have failed! And the reasons are written and told across all media because she is the "presuimptive" nominee on the verge of elimination.
What will America say if Obama loses one on Tues? They won't say that Hillary won.
They'll say that Obama lost.
They had a perfect season in the NFL and emerged undefeated on the eve of the Superbowl. Then the New York Giants changed the status of the "presumptive champion" from inevitable winner to LOSER.
America does not tolerate losers. Someone must take the blame for failure.
The rise of Barack Obama can mean only one thing in the minds of many. Hillary and her campaign have failed! And the reasons are written and told across all media because she is the "presuimptive" nominee on the verge of elimination.
What will America say if Obama loses one on Tues? They won't say that Hillary won.
They'll say that Obama lost.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Clinton and The Media Outclassed
Words mean things.
My father taught me that as we listened to political speeches.
He was chairman of the speech department at UCSB and a PHD in rhetoric. He used to play speeches for his senior classes and I was his young son watching him prepare for lecture.
He would pace the floor during a Nixon speech and shout, "Did you hear what he just said?"
I would repeat what was said.
"No no, did you hear what he meant by what he said?"
He explained that in the arena of politics and professional speech with writers and candidates on the national stage - words are chosen carefully and people say exactly what they mean.
I've listened to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain and the other candidates for office. And I can tell you that Gary Wills should already be working on a new book because Barack Obama represents fundamental change to political speech in America. He has also exposed the shortcomings of political reporters who hear what's being said but don't have much to say about what it means.
Obama is the Tiger Woods of political oration and as of right now he is playing in a league of his own.
In a speech given Tuesday night in Houston, Barack Obama repeatedly crushed his opponents and specifically answered Hillary Clinton while keeping himself elevated above the mudfight that the far right, the Clintons and the media have been managing for 16 years.
Here are three examples of what Obama said on Tuesday night:
1)
"As wonderful as this gathering is, as exciting as these enormous crowds and this enormous energy may be, what we're trying to do here is not easy, and it will not happen overnight.
It is going to take more than big rallies. It's going to require more than rousing speeches. It will also require more than policy papers and positions and Web sites. It is going to require something more, because the problem that we face in America today is not the lack of good ideas. It's that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die...
(APPLAUSE)
... because lobbyists crush them with their money and their influence, because politicians spend too much time trying to score political points and not enough time trying to bridge their differences so we can get something done.
(APPLAUSE)
The problem is that we haven't had leaders who can inspire the American people to rally behind a common purpose and a higher purpose. And this is what we need to change today..."
****
2)
"...I'm not running because of some long-held ambition. I know that some people have been looking through my kindergarten papers, but that's not why I decided to run.
(APPLAUSE)
I'm not running because I think it's somehow owed to me. I'm running because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now, the fierce urgency of now.
(APPLAUSE)
****
3)
If you're ready for change, we can assure that every child in America has the best education this country has to offer...
(APPLAUSE)
... from the day that child is born to the day that child graduates from college. The problem is not the lack of plans, the lack of good ideas. The problem is a lack of political will, a lack of urgency.
****
The public instinctively understand this man.
By contrast, the speech of Hillary Clinton is barely any different in tone deafness and flat delivery from John Kerry. Further, Obama isn't arguing ideology against Hillary Clinton or John McCain. He is arguing that he is a better person because he has a higher purpose. That is a breathtaking statement! And it wasn't focus group tested either. This guy just knows who he is.
Here's my critique of the three examples from Tuesday:
1) Obama catches Hillary's "just words" critique and turns her into a frumpy policy wonk who doesn't inspire the people and is a captive of special interest money.(Ohhh - -SNAP!)
2)Obama captures the public perception of Hillary and a sense that she feels she is owed something. Then mocks the opposition research that involved his Kindergarten papers. It's a slap and a dismissal followed by a quote from Dr. King that piles dirt all over the sinking Clinton campaign.
3)This is Obama asking Hillary if she still thinks she is the smartest kid in class.
The speech is a carefully constructed demonstration of his power.
Hey, I know rhetorical analysis is pretty geeky stuff. So what. We're being taught by a master orator that words MEAN things. After 8 years of Mr. Bush, I'm positively giddy.
(The entire transcript of The 2.19.08 speech by Senator Obama can be found at The Turner Report
My father taught me that as we listened to political speeches.
He was chairman of the speech department at UCSB and a PHD in rhetoric. He used to play speeches for his senior classes and I was his young son watching him prepare for lecture.
He would pace the floor during a Nixon speech and shout, "Did you hear what he just said?"
I would repeat what was said.
"No no, did you hear what he meant by what he said?"
He explained that in the arena of politics and professional speech with writers and candidates on the national stage - words are chosen carefully and people say exactly what they mean.
I've listened to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain and the other candidates for office. And I can tell you that Gary Wills should already be working on a new book because Barack Obama represents fundamental change to political speech in America. He has also exposed the shortcomings of political reporters who hear what's being said but don't have much to say about what it means.
Obama is the Tiger Woods of political oration and as of right now he is playing in a league of his own.
In a speech given Tuesday night in Houston, Barack Obama repeatedly crushed his opponents and specifically answered Hillary Clinton while keeping himself elevated above the mudfight that the far right, the Clintons and the media have been managing for 16 years.
Here are three examples of what Obama said on Tuesday night:
1)
"As wonderful as this gathering is, as exciting as these enormous crowds and this enormous energy may be, what we're trying to do here is not easy, and it will not happen overnight.
It is going to take more than big rallies. It's going to require more than rousing speeches. It will also require more than policy papers and positions and Web sites. It is going to require something more, because the problem that we face in America today is not the lack of good ideas. It's that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die...
(APPLAUSE)
... because lobbyists crush them with their money and their influence, because politicians spend too much time trying to score political points and not enough time trying to bridge their differences so we can get something done.
(APPLAUSE)
The problem is that we haven't had leaders who can inspire the American people to rally behind a common purpose and a higher purpose. And this is what we need to change today..."
****
2)
"...I'm not running because of some long-held ambition. I know that some people have been looking through my kindergarten papers, but that's not why I decided to run.
(APPLAUSE)
I'm not running because I think it's somehow owed to me. I'm running because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now, the fierce urgency of now.
(APPLAUSE)
****
3)
If you're ready for change, we can assure that every child in America has the best education this country has to offer...
(APPLAUSE)
... from the day that child is born to the day that child graduates from college. The problem is not the lack of plans, the lack of good ideas. The problem is a lack of political will, a lack of urgency.
****
The public instinctively understand this man.
By contrast, the speech of Hillary Clinton is barely any different in tone deafness and flat delivery from John Kerry. Further, Obama isn't arguing ideology against Hillary Clinton or John McCain. He is arguing that he is a better person because he has a higher purpose. That is a breathtaking statement! And it wasn't focus group tested either. This guy just knows who he is.
Here's my critique of the three examples from Tuesday:
1) Obama catches Hillary's "just words" critique and turns her into a frumpy policy wonk who doesn't inspire the people and is a captive of special interest money.(Ohhh - -SNAP!)
2)Obama captures the public perception of Hillary and a sense that she feels she is owed something. Then mocks the opposition research that involved his Kindergarten papers. It's a slap and a dismissal followed by a quote from Dr. King that piles dirt all over the sinking Clinton campaign.
3)This is Obama asking Hillary if she still thinks she is the smartest kid in class.
The speech is a carefully constructed demonstration of his power.
Hey, I know rhetorical analysis is pretty geeky stuff. So what. We're being taught by a master orator that words MEAN things. After 8 years of Mr. Bush, I'm positively giddy.
(The entire transcript of The 2.19.08 speech by Senator Obama can be found at The Turner Report
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
