Posted on 11/04/2007 5:36:45 AM PST by Kaslin
When Hillary Clinton muffed the Tim Russert question on the support of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's plan to give fake drivers' licenses to illegal aliens, a seismic shift occurred. But it was not what the unilateral conservative pundit universe believes it was. Yes Hillary stubbed her toe, and reinforced some of her already high negatives, but claiming she is now dead on arrival is far too premature. If anything the reaction to the issue may have sealed the nomination for Hillary Clinton. Understanding this shift will be the difference in electing her or stopping her and the advice that Talk Radio had better undertake is to: "let it alone."
Here's six reasons why:
1. Talk Radio speaks to the wrong audience. The echo chamber that conservative talk radio is - will not be heard by the voters Hillary is courting. Conservative talk radio aims its message largely to fifty year old white guys. Rush Limbaugh's audience tips somewhere around 70% male to 30% female. So do Laura Ingraham, Bill Bennett, Dennis Prager, and Mike Gallagher. The more female friendly versions of the genre tip 65% male to 35% female include Sean Hannity and Michael Medved. Michael Savage and Hugh Hewitt are even higher at roughly 75-80% male dominance. Fifty year old white guys weren't voting for Hillary to begin with. At what point does the spin that "the boys" are piling on - move from fantasy to reality? The moment that the general public (the greater majority of the nation who does not access talk radio) begins to feel as though talk radio went beyond reporting what she said to pummelling her beyond oblivion.
2. Barely anyone saw the muff. The Hillary illegals' license flip flop happened in the final two minutes of one of the least watched debates to date. If you were to take the national audience watching when it happened and the combined total number of views to the two most prominent YouTube clips highlighting the incident (54,000 views at press time of this column) you have an audience that is dwarfed by the number of people who watch the first :90 seconds of any American Idol episode in history. Replaying the soundbyte of the moment more than one or twice begins to be heard largely out of context. The real power of which - the shifting of her feet, refusal to look at Russert or the audience as she replied, and the general look of nervousness she exhibited is all lost in the audio only form.
3. Conservatives said she did well otherwise. The day following the debate Charles Krauthammer reminded Brit Hume and a certain Fred Barnes (who looked as though he was about to burst) that until the license meltdown Hillary Clinton had actually had a rather strong showing in the debate. Uber-blogger and alternate media mogul Michelle Malkin penned, "She is looking solid and grown-up. The men are nervous, small, and nutty." To date most politicos have maintained the general impression is that Hillary has been on message with few falters. Keeping in mind that her audience at present is not the public but primarily liberal, mostly single female voters. And even though fiscal conservatives had a hearty chuckle and quickly produced the cost of the total tab on a $5000 give-away per child initiative, few of the women Hillary was speaking to objected, and many found it an enticing proposal.
4. Hillary only wins - when she is a victim. Perhaps the most overlooked aspect of the entire Hillary fall-out issue is that such an incident plays directly into her strategy. Hillary can never be a champion of strength for anything as long as she is a "front runner." Her most historically significant positives always came in the aftermath of a moment in time in which she was able to castigate herself as a victim of circumstance, or of the abuse of men. When her husband was diddling interns in the Oval Office, her approvals were low. When he was discovered and exposed for it - her positives shot through the roof. It gave her a "cross to bear" moment to do the "right thing" even though she and the former President are more like business partners than any marriage I'd ever want to participate in. Fast forward to her run for the U.S. Senate after Mayor Giuliani had dropped out of the race due to his personal marriage issues and prostate cancer. Enter Congressman Rick Lazio and the now infamous moment of crossing the stage and slapping the pledge form on her podium and demanding that she "sign it." The Congressman confessed to me just a year ago that had he understood how that act would be spun by Hillary and her team of support in the mainstream media that he would have never considered it. Team Hillary was out in force following the debate, even through alternative media pages like Drudge, they were able to work the headline spin that Hillary had been ganged-up on. She was given a rousing "homecoming" at Wellesley College where she worked a jab into the speech. Emotional conference calls held by the campaign the days following called down more criticism upon the man asking the questions at the debate - not the candidates. And just to sweeten the pie team Hillary's number one attack dog - the former President - was sent to shake his finger before television cameras and call Russert's aggressive questioning "breathtakingly misleading." Rush has said it for years - but the only way Hillary wins is as a "victim," and now the "front-runner" is "just that."
5. Rasmussen shows she "gained." Using polling methods that enabled them to get 2000, 2004, and 2006 accurately predicted, Rasmussen Reports released findings on the Hillary gaffe on Friday, nearly a full work week after the event. On Monday and Tuesday night's polls, Hillary's lead remained constant. On Wednesday and Thursday night's polls after the negative attacks were hammered hard by talk radio - Hillary's lead gained 5% and her closest opponent dropped 6%. That's and 11% swing - after the "rubbing her nose in it" effect fully kicked in. In addition 74% of voters believe Hillary will be the "inevitable" nominee.
6. Women - vote irrationally. Some women will be offended by the observation but most will agree, women do not vote according to what they know. They tend instead to vote based on intuition. They get "a feeling" about a candidate and that's what they trust. Hillary has understood this better than anyone else. Her consistent campaign "story" of "90 year old women 'remembering when they didn't have the right to vote' and 'determined to live until they see a woman president' has been thoroughly mocked by talk radio for its lack of believability. Which is true - no one believes Hillary is being swarmed by a bunch silver-haired Susan B. Anthonys. But talk radio is missing the point. Thirty year old women don't care if it's true, it makes them feel like they are part of history and for that reason alone "its time" for them to vote for a woman. Smart women understand this as well. Ann Coulter recently confided to me off air - that she would gladly give up her vote because she is tired of using her informed knowledge of candidate selection being overridden by four to five other women who could not even name all of the candidates running for President, much less identify what they stand for. The only group less rational in its voting patterns than women are African Americans who consistently elect people who keep them poor, keep them uneducated, and keep them killing their own. It should be noted - Hillary does exceptionally well with that demographic as well.
Because I felt the soundbyte was newsworthy I played it a total of two times in a three minute segment on one broadcast of the show this week. Which is about all the attention it needs amongst talk radio. It will have to be John Edwards and Barack Obama who will need to exploit the issue from this point forward because they mainly seek the same audiences that Hillary does. Of the two Obama is the only "more persecuted" demographic in the race and he of all the democratic candidates has the best opportunity to both exploit her gaffe, while then carrying the water as the "victimized front runner."
The more talk radio yells louder than Edwards or Obama about Hillary for the next 60 days - the more talk radio will insure that Hillary remains not only the front runner, but in fact becomes the candidate for the Democratic Party.
And just imagine the finger-pointing Bill will be able to get away with then...
Ewwww!
Your thoughts, please.
And don't go gettin' all Lifetime Channel on me.
I’ve got a ‘feeling’ that I’m not going to vote for her. LOL
How about Oxygen Channel for a different age group.
And that's a bad thing? We want a Dem candidate with almost 50% negatives and enough personal baggage to sink a cargo ship. I wonder if the author would be in favor of going after Hillary when she becomes the nominee? His same logic would appear to applu similarly, i.e., any attacks help Hillary.
IBTZ
she plays this card to dumb women very well. That is why I'm beginning to think the whole lesbian rumor to the press was a leak from her camp recently to distract from er performance at the debates. It would make the conservative blogs explode in an uprorar and then she would complain of being attacked by the big bad conservatives.
This is so 1984. Weakness is strength. lies are truth.
The idiot McCullough drinks Hitlery koolaid.
This guy is on some serious drugs
If that's true, then the rest of his argument falls apart because Hillary voters won't hear and can't be affected by what talk radio does.
Same here. Strong negatives for Hillary from women I know including Democrat and liberals.
Just like Howard Dean?
This is reverse psychology at it’s worst. I don’t give a damn who the Dems nominate. I believe we can beat any of them if we get our message out and if we convince the people we are going back to governing right of center and quit trying to compete with Democrats on give away bull*&^%.
Um, Michelle Malkin was (and still is) a newspaper columnist long before Internet Blogs were popular. A Blog is just an interactive column. (I say this only because blogs are generally percieved by the uninitiated to be nothing more than rants by people who generally have no qualifications. But that is not always the case).
On another note, I think the point to all this is that there is a fine line between just pointing it out and brow-beating it. Certainly there are many libs that listen to Talk Radio just to see what's being said. So certainly there needs to be balance. Report it, talk about it for a day (or two), then move on (Gee, I've really come to hate that term).
What is it about the rats always being a victim? If the B**** can't stand the heat, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN!
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.