Four theories to explain Hillary's stunner.

A mostly political Weblog.
Jan. 9 2008 5:04 AM

Hillary Stuns--Four Theories

Bonus 5th Theory just added!

(Continued from Page 49)

Friday, November 23, 2007

Page 6 Shocker:"[S]ingle singer/songwriter" tries "picking up women" when he's drunk! 5:30 P.M.

___________________________

When you've got Nixon, make Nixonade:  John Ellis argues  Hillary can't base her campaign on being likeable (she's not) and basing her campaign on being 'inevitable,' which she's done, is highly risky-e.g., if she loses the first two primaries. Instead, Ellis advises her to emulate Nixon in 1968 and portray herself as the 'woman in the arena':

Like Nixon, Senator Clinton is widely disliked. Like Nixon, she cannot be made warm ....

But also like Nixon, she is intelligent and diligent and determined and tough and she has been through hell and back. She is experienced in a way that only her husband and President George W. Bush are experienced. She knows what it's like to get her head kicked in every day, day after day after day, for months and years on end. She endures.

That was the whole point of the 1968 Nixon campaign narrative. He wasn't perfect by any means, but he was formidable and he endured. It's a narrative that fits Senator Clinton's campaign like a glove.

Advertisement

Hmm. Is Ellis saying Hillary should actually stage 'man in the arena' events as Nixon famously did? And aren't her attempts to prove how "formidable" she is by cutting up Obama --belittling his "" living in a foreign country at the age of 10"-- unappealing? I asked Ellis via email and got this response:

I think every campaign is, basically, a narrative.  How that narrative is distributed changes as the means of distribution change (the Internet has obviously become v important, etc).  But I think her narrative is not "she's inevitable because she's experienced and the others are too light."  I think her narrative is "formidable, battle-scarred, flawed, but important."  I think Penn thinks he can micro-target to victory.  I think they need a large macro theme that enables people to vote for Hillary, even though they don't want to.

It's obviously late now.  This is work they should have done in 2006 and 2007: setting the context for "understanding" her candidacy ...

"Enduring" seems only a nuance away from "experienced," but I see Ellis' point. Campaigning as tough, battle-scarred fixture, etc. would certainly serve Hillary better, should she lose Iowa and New Hampshire, than campaigning as "inevitable." It seems entirely possible--given the way the Feiler Faster phenomenon enables quick comebacks in short periods of time--that primary voters might feel like resurrecting Ms. Durability after she's suffered a bit by way of a New Hampshire loss.  (Making her suffer a bit might even be the point.**) But there's no point in resurrecting a failed Ms. Inevitability. ...

**--Voters might especially want her to suffer a bit because she's portrayed herself as inevitable. ... 3:58 P.M. link

___________________________

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

  Slate Plus
Tv Club
Oct. 30 2014 7:27 PM The American Horror Story: Freak Show Podcast, Episode 4 The “Edward Mordrake (Part 2)” edition.