Thought
Has all the talk of dissension, stirred dutifully by surrogates and anonymous complaints, substantially "lowered the bar" for the Clinton speech to something she can not only get over, but leap over?
posted by mikevotes at
4:54 PM
8 Comments:
I'm not sure I follow your point...
I could argue that the bar for Clinton is RAISED if this "dissension" is believed to be wide and deep (I do not). The wider the divide, the bigger the feat it is to bridge.
By
-epm, at 2:31 PM
BUT, the media is selling it as if the dissension is big.
So, if the divide isn't really that big, and the media portrays it as huge, then, her speech to deliver "unity" isn't that hard, but the media presents it as if it is.
Thus, she gets raves when all the dissension her people are sowing disappears.
Not that I'm cynical or anything.....
By
mikevotes, at 2:50 PM
Now I'm with you. Right. By portraying a sidewalk crack as the Grand Canyon, the media will swoon with superlatives when Hillary bridges the gap... in reality a fairly simple task, made monumental only because the media believe their own "reporting."
But following this thinking (and all the PUMA fretting), do Democrats come out of the convention with the media praising them for their great Unity in Diversity? Wouldn't that be the arc of the story of Hillary as Uniter?
The other story arc I'm seeing develop is the incredible shrinking McCain. I'm not sure it's fully developed yet, but I'm seeing a shift in the media's McCain group-think. When's the last time you heard McCain referred to as "maverick?" I don't think it's the automatic adjective that it once was.
I'm also picking up a certain weariness in the media of his POW story being used as the response to any and all challenging questions. (Going to the well too many times?)
Finally, I think there's a slight emphasis in the media of framing McCain's campaign as a GOP Machine campaign -- complete with Bush/Cheney hired guns -- and McCain just the meat they're pushing. Maybe I'm putting too sharp a distinction on it, but I think the media are framing Obama as leading his party, while framing McCain as being led by his party. (Again, the maverick brand severely weakened).
Thoughts?
By
-epm, at 3:27 PM
Yeah, Hillary as uniter is a key storyline they want. Especially after the primaries where she was so derided for continuing on. If she has any future ambitions on the presidency, she has to fix her relationship with the Obama folks.
Also, even if she's not thinking presidential, If she can create the impression of "delivering" these voters, she suddenly has a ton of weight to throw around.
As for the McCain storylines, hard to say. We're in the Dem convention, the media people are spending all their time getting off the record from Democrats, so their coverage is going to temporarily slant a little.
By
mikevotes, at 4:36 PM
re: Hillary...
She could be the next Ted Kennedy. Someone who was "supposed" to be president, but fate didn't allow. Then goes on to become a major power in the senate and a model for a generation. Not that she will, just that she could. She could reinvent herself as the "lioness of the senate."
By
-epm, at 8:55 PM
And, with Kennedy ailing, she could.
The one problem is that, although they respect her power, I would think because of the family/power dynasty, there might be a lot of Senators resistant.
By
mikevotes, at 9:04 PM
But Kennedy was of a dynastic family and also seen as a spoiler in 1980... Maybe I'm drawing too close a parallel. It seems to me she needs to decide what her priorities are.
By
-epm, at 9:20 PM
At this point, I don't think she knows.
(And it's not "spoiler" that I'm arguing would be a problem. It's the way the Clinton's ran the party. There are alot of old wounds, especially among those in the Senate at the time, at the way the Clinton presidency wielded power.)
By
mikevotes, at 9:30 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home