Mia, with all due respect, I must disagree just a little at least.
You write, "all the more opportunity for us to define her". Certainly we will have all the time in the world to define her, but on what venues will we be defining her? What segments of the voting population will be observe and be influenced by our "venues" where she is to be exposed?
I still fear that our definitions of her will be well hidden by nearly all the media, and that most of the public in November of 2008 won't have a clue as to what she really is.
More later.
Keep up the great work. I admire you very much.
I swear that your artwork/graphics (I don't know the correct words) are the greatest art of our time.
Mia said: If she continues to hide, all the more opportunity for us to define her.
I'm only on my first cup of coffee here, but isn't Mia refering to the general population (those who are still easily influenced by ABCBSNBCNNMSNBC)? Hillary hides, the MSM report that Hillary "has done soooooo much for our country -blah, blah, blah - all her hard work fighting for the people of NY..." Without Hillary in front of the cameras where *real* journalists ask tough, unexpected, non-preapproved questions, all a large group (those over 18 who can't identify our Vice President in photos) of the voting public knows is what the senatrix wants them to know.
The "us," I believe, are the voters who go to the polls uninformed with the exception of name recognition only.
However, I might be the one interpreting Mia's post incorrectly.
We must be creative.
We must develop multiple, redundant direct lines to the people.
We must bypass old media when we cannot exploit them.
We must insinuate ourselves into her space... and pounce.
Katherine Prudhomme is a great and courageous example of this.
OTOH, when it becomes clear to old media that hillary clinton is a sure loser
--and it will--
they will drop her in a New York minute.
Indeed, some already have.
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007
