The Sunday talk shows were dominated, of course, by Hillary Clinton who appeared on no fewer than 5 shows, several of which followed her interview with a panel discussion, during which Clinton won universally rave reviews:
Bob Scheiffer, Face The Nation:
Her remarks on North Korea, she came off pretty tough there, I was pretty surprised by that.
The New York Times's David Sanger when asked what struck him most about her interview on Face The Nation:
The strength of her answer on the Syria question.
David Brooks, This Week:
She looked presidential to me frankly...she was extremely serious and responsible, for somebody for me on the right was thinking, she's a serious person.
Cokie Roberts, This Week:
I think that she was very strong today and has been, she's waged a very smart smart disciplined campaign.
Brit Hume, Fox News Sunday:
I have to tell you, Chris, I thought she was in terrific form...I thought she handled herself very ably.
The panels' treatment of Clinton contrasted starkly with the way Giuliani's staged phone call from his wife during his speech to the NRA was received:
Mara Liasson, Fox News Sunday:
Yeesh is all I can say about it. I mean, it's so weird...I don't know what he was thinking.
Cokie Roberts, This Week:
Even with that weird phone call? That was very odd...There was a weird factor here that we really do need to address.
David Brooks, This Week:
He took a creepy moment.
Do I care that right-wing hacks think Hillary Clinton is a "serious person?" Not particularly. What's significant here though is that she drove the narrative. The pundits fell right into the trap she set, putting voice to the exact message Clinton wanted them to: she's "strong," "responsible," "presidential." She played them like a fiddle. Giuliani on the other hand would have much preferred to have the conversation focus on the notion that he made inroads with the NRA, a troublesome interest group for him, or that his phone call from his wife projected "loving husband, family man," another trouble spot. Instead, the story became that his cellphone gimmick was "creepy," "weird" and "odd."
These contrasting Sunday morning narratives give us an interesting glimpse into how a Clinton v. Giuliani head to head might be approached by the candidates (Clinton is much more skillful at manipulating the media than Giuliani) and the media (they at this point are far more skeptical of the Republican for a change) but it also appears to undermine a common pre-conception about Clinton: that her campaign is Gore and Kerry cautious centrism redux and thus destined for the same fate. While certainly Clinton has run a deliberate and in some respects cautious primary campaign (and presumably will tack even further to the center for the general election,) what doomed Gore and Kerry was the notion that they had no convictions, that they were weak. From the Sunday morning reviews Senator Clinton received, she doesn't seem to have this problem and indeed has even successfully framed her change on healthcare as a principled evolution (read: lessons learned.) I think David Brooks had a point (a stopped clock...) when he said Giuliani would not be able to be credibly labeled a flip flopper because that attack only works on someone who's perceived as weak, which, from Brooks's perspective, is not a problem Giuliani has; the same can be said for Clinton.
Whereas the progressive movement took one lesson from Gore and Kerry's losses: that to win, Democrats need to forsake the down the middle politics that have led us to losses in the past and instead stand up clearly and strongly for progressive values, Clinton appears to be banking on a slightly different lesson: that in fact running down the middle is a winning strategy as long as you convince people that your positions are sincere and come from a place of strength, not weakness, a feat Clinton appears to be accomplishing, if the reactions to her Sunday talkshow appearances are any indication.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 122 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
