There's some words for ya.
Posted on 07/17/2006 5:29:32 AM PDT by PDR
For all those Republicans and a few Democrats who think Hillary Clinton can't possibly be elected President, I have two words for you: Ronald Reagan. I remember it well. He was too old. He was too conservative. He was too scary. And he was elected in two landslides. The exact same kinds of assumptions about electability 25 years ago are alive and well in 2006, and they are just as wrong for Hillary Clinton today as they were for Reagan in 1979.
She's too divisive. Too calculating. Too marred by the Clinton years. Oh, - and she's a woman.
Never mind the chatter. Hillary Clinton sits atop many polls for President with good reason and, if she plays her cards right, she could remain there right through November 2008.
Why? Because her intelligence, assertiveness, personality and celebrity are powerful strengths. I know this for a fact. My firm has conducted extensive focus-group research in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Now, for me to map out a road map to the White House for the most polarizing Democrat in America is like Jack Kevorkian hosting a reception for the AARP. But who am I to turn down a request to take part in a fascinating political exercise?
So, here goes. Here's how Hillary can continue to lead the pack, and the four essential steps she needs to take to stay on top.
First, she must be herself. Her recent tack to the right - from equivocating on the Iraq war, to supporting a ban on flag burning - is fooling no one and is seriously agitating her liberal base. The reason Hillary became so popular in the first place was her unflinching willingness to tell it like it is. She must say what she means, and mean what she says.
Similarly, recent efforts by Clinton to inject religious references into her speeches to prove she's a person of faith is like fingernails on a chalkboard to Democrat primary voters. Clinton must win the primary first - then worry about the general election. If Democrats really cared about religion, they'd be Republicans.
Second, Clinton must give us answers, not just criticism. She is already applauded by most voters for her focus and determination and does a good job explaining the specifics (and even the minutiae) of the issues she cares about. None of that should change.
But she spends so much time criticizing the Republicans that voters aren't hearing enough of what she would do instead. If Clinton can modulate that overly negative tone, she will bolster her chances.
Democrats already know what they don't like about Republicans. They expect Clinton to prove to them that she can, and will, undo all the “damage” that has been done. So, she should write another book that outlines a positive vision for the future. Give voters the alternative to Bush's America - in writing.
Third, Clinton, who can be charming and funny in private, should be more candid and unpredictable. She should tell voters something new every now and then to give them a reason to listen. A been there, done that campaign approach won't sell in an age of 24-hour news coverage.
A good joke - even one made at her own expense - wouldn't hurt.
Fourth, Clinton needs to remember to speak from her heart, not her head. Right now, she sometimes sounds like Al Gore ... without the pizzazz. Successful Republicans think. Successful Democrats - like Bill Clinton - feel. Hillary should lower her decibel level, making voters strain to hear her. The softer she is, the more emotional she will sound.
Unlike the other candidates vying for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton has genuine star power. She clearly delivers the brains and the intensity, but there are a number of verbal and visual miscues that could undermine her presentation, her image and, eventually, her support. She must realize, as Reagan did, that she is more than just a messenger. She is the message.
Luntz polled for Rudy Giuliani in 1993, 1997 and 2000. He is the author of "Words that Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear."
Originally published on July 17, 2006
Hillary is nothing more than a FAT PANT LOAD !!
Let's see:
Hillary Clinton is to Ronald Reagan as...
well, that was a helpful comment.... please, do your best to keep the level of discourse elevated.
thank you.
This guy is burning kilos of hashish in his sauna.
How about "she's too liberal"?
No wonder he is so full of it...
There's some words for ya.
as cow dung is to a fireman?
The problem with this comparison is that all of the negative comments thrown at RR were the liberal media's attempt to thwart him. They had little basis in truth. Hillary's negatives, on the toher hand, have been greatly downplayed by that same liberal media.
To frank luntz I have one word: DRUGS?
One word for this author....delusional.
Of course, the problem with Luntz's thesis is that...how to put this?...Hillary Clinton is no Ronald Reagan.
can you do that? isn't it too damp to burn things?
Hillary is no Reagan.
Reagan got elected governor of CA twice. No small feat. If Hillary wanted to prove her electibility in swing states, she should have run for the Senate from Arkansas or someplace more "red."
Those were media positions. RR was immensely popular with the people however. Hillary's in the opposite position: the MSM loves her but the people hate her. Call me when the MSM gets the majority of the Electoral College.
If the election can be bought, then Hillary can be elected.
Hillary will NEVER be right for America.
"She's too divisive. Too calculating. Too marred by the Clinton years. Oh, - and she's a woman."
Divisive? Yes.
Calculating? Yes, but arrogant and overconfident.
Marred by the Clinton years? Yes.
A woman? Questionable at best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.