First, let's talk about political mail and how ineffective it seems to be.
As anyone who lives in New Hampshire or watched my appearance on Keller's show knows, we get a lot of political mail up here during primary season. And the mailers seem to be randomly flailing at voters. There doesn't seem to be a cohesive strategy to the mailers except to perform the voter outreach.
Yesterday, when I got home from work, there were five political mailers: One from Hillary Clinton's campaign, another from AFSCME PEOPLE supporting Clinton, and two from New Hampshire WOMEN VOTE!, "a project of EMILY's List," supporting Clinton, all addressed to my wife. Another 527, Alliance for A New America, sent a pro-John Edwards mailer to me, obviously targeting indie voters for the candidate in the state.
The Clinton campaign mailer continues with that theme a month thing I have been talking about for a while. "Ready to Deliver Change ..." and "Real Solutions for America's Greatest Challenges ..." There are four planks: Health Care, Economy, Foreign Policy, and Energy, touching on pretty basic themes Hillary has promoted although there is nothing about taking on the special interests or going after corporate greed, like her television ads. Interestingly, Hillary has also not, to my knowledge, sponsored any bills to create "green collar jobs" or troop withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, she has voted to give President Bush the ability to invade Iran if he wants. The flyer also contains lots of smiling, politically correct faces at campaign events [The veteran, a handful of seniors, the Yuppie mom embarrassingly smirking that she can't believe she is meeting Hillary, and the Latino family].
But one picture is really striking: In the lower right hand corner there is a dark-haired, slightly upper middle class mom-type with a young blond-haired girl on her lap [I'm assuming it is her daughter] with a transfixed look on her face. If you have ever lived on the edge, you know the look: It is one of slight desperation and deep concern but still hopeful that something can be done to fix your problems and those of the nation. It is one of those, "I was sold a bill of goods and it is not quite what I expected," looks. It is a visual theme that should be familiar to those who watch political campaigns because it is something Bill Clinton used quite effectively. My question though is this: What happens to that woman if Hillary is elected and then fails on all her promises like her husband did or gives us more bad legislation like her husband did? What happens this time, if she frits away another health care mandate with secret meetings and pharmaceutical stock manipulation like she did last time? And, how did she become worth close to $50 million, according to her 2005 disclosure forms, on a salary of about $133,000 annually and $4 million from book deals?
The AFSCME mailer talks about Hillary being "the clear choice" to fix health care noting that she is "Ready to be President from Day One," as if none of the other candidates are ready. On this mailer, unlike the previous AFSCME mailers or ads, there are no cheap shots against Barack Obama and no finger-pointing-blame at Edwards, which is a nice change to the positive for the union.
The two New Hampshire WOMEN VOTE! mailers are very similar, featuring [probably] two New Hampshire women who have endorsed Hillary. One, Amy Michaels, is a mom with two boys, who calls Hillary "determined to make things better" [A Google of variations of Amy Michaels, Hillary Clinton, and New Hampshire, yield no tangible results]. Inside, another theme: "Hillary Clinton: A Tested, Experienced Leader to Change America." The flyer rattles off a bunch of topics, including this one, which I found amusing "Corporate greed has eroded our middle class." Of course, this ignores the fact that husband Bill and the Democrats in Congress had a HUGE role in the economic crisis we are facing since it started back before Bush was selected by the Supreme Court. But beyond that, no real answers to anything. What is Hillary going to do? Tell us some specifics. Sorry, they aren't there. As well, the anti-corporate greed candidates are Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, not Hillary. If EMILY's List is so concerned about corporate greed, why aren't they backing the anti-corporate candidates? Because they don't have the correct plumbing?
The second mailer seems to be geared towards the single, early- to mid-20s woman, with Kelly McCall on the front, dressed in a leather jacket with bangs that typically went out in the late 1990s [Note: No North Shore bug shield bangs which are still popular in some parts of Manch. A Google of Kelly McCall, Hillary Clinton, and New Hampshire, yielded some Blue New Hampshire posts about the mailers as well as a blog post by a guy in Florida talking about a woman who hand cycled 2,500 miles for the American Lung Association. The point of doing the Googling is to find out if these women are plants or if they actually live in New Hampshire]. Again, not a lot of substance as to what Hillary will do for the 20-something who might be barely struggling to live, possibly with a roommate, but still facing down the economic strife that many of us are looking at.
Question: Why is EMILY's List wasting its money on the mailers which tell the voters nothing about Hillary Clinton and give women no real reasons to vote for her other than the fact she is a woman?
Update: I was thinking about this on the drive to work this morning. I wonder if this group put the money up for the canvassers that the New Hampshire Citizens Alliance was advertising for. I talked about that issue over here: ["Interesting job offer ..."].
The Alliance for A New America has done a few mailers in the state with different themes. This latest one is about fighting special interests in Washington. It has a couple on the cover having a serious discussion [or argument, if you will] about the state of their finances. "New Hampshire families are losing out because specials interest money controls Washington." Well, umm, duh. Inside it states: "John Edwards has a plan to defeat the big corporations that have hijacked our government so they get rich at the expense of our families." Hmm, OK. Whattayagonna do? Tax relief for the middle class, quality health insurance, protect benefits, education opportunities and energy independence, it states. Later, on the back, there is a challenge: "Ask all the candidates what their plans are ..."
That's right: Ask them all. Get specific. I think you'll be surprised by the the lack of information you get.
I don't know if I listed the results of the IndependentPrimary.com poll or not so I will do it here, again. It was a runaway for Kucinich and Ron Paul. On the Democratic side, Kuinich received 67 percent of the vote or 61,477 votes. Edwards was second with 7,614 and Obama was third with 3,847 votes. The rest trailed far behind. Over on the Republican side, Paul received 23,524 votes or 93 percent. None of the other candidates cracked more than 1,000 votes, which should not be a surprise. Alan Keyes received 30 votes while John Cox received 0. Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney received 80 percent of the Green vote with 250 votes. Ralph Nader was not listed because, technically, he isn't a candidate [yet]. "None of the Above" received 909 votes. I wonder why there isn't a Libertarian primary listed, especially with Paul garnering so much support.
Another vote will be taken after the New Hampshire primary [Jan.8] running through Super Duper Tuesday, Feb. 5.
The group is also raising money for a radio spot buy in New Hampshire before the primary and is being told that media buyers are saying that the larger radio stations in the state are charging $400 to $500 per spot in drive time! I can't believe that, so I'm looking into it to see if it is true. If it is, someone is ripping someone else off.
Today, I received another phone call from the Clinton campaign [603-289-4965]. Same old song and dance as before, only this time a bit of desperation in the voice of the woman making the call. I told her I wouldn't tell her who I was voting for, which caught this one off guard too. Note to the Clinton campaign: Please stop calling us!
Also, I received a robocall from Dennis Kucinich making his pitch to New Hampshire voters. I wondered what was going on with the call because when I first answered, there was a bit of silence and then a voice saying, "Democrat ... take three ..." and then Dennis spoke. Note to Dennis: You might want to have them edit your recording before sending out the robocalls. It will sound more professional.
Another note on Kucinich: He asked his supporters to give their second choice votes in the Iowa caucuses to Obama: ["Kucinich Asks Supporters to Back Obama"].
Some may remember that Kucinich did this in 2004 and it clearly helped buoy Edwards to a second place finish in that caucus.
I asked Dennis during a Q&A after an event at St. Paul's School that year if throwing support to Edwards was a shrewd political move to solidify trade and anti-invasion support behind his campaign and damage both the Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean campaigns.
Laura Clawson over at BlueHampshire [She's Miss Laura on DailyKos] tells everyone who she is voting for here: ["My Vote 1/8/8"]. Her two colleagues there have endorsed Chris Dodd.
Mike Pride, one of the Concord Monitor's editorial board, explains the newspaper's decision to endorse Clinton and John McCain here: ["The story behind the 'Monitor's' presidential endorsements"].
Some people in the newspaper business don't think you should write these kinds of columns, explaining why a newspaper came to a certain decision; others do. I tend to side with the airing of information versus the fourth estate wall.
I do find the piece a pretty good explanation of how the newspaper came to its endorsements. But, frankly, it was not surprising. I knew that the Monitor would take the safe route this year and go with both Clinton and McCain. I just had a hunch in my gut and it proved to be correct. The editorial board really seems to take things from a baby boomer/Yuppie point of view and you can see it in the endorsement of Clinton ...
In addition, by endorsing McCain, they indirectly drive independent voters away from Edwards and Obama, which in turn, helps Hillary.
Sidebar: The Boston Globe and other newspapers seem to be taking the same strategy with their editorials. This was done in 2000 too and led to a virtual collapse of Bill Bradley's campaign against Al Gore. I still contend that Bradley would have won against Bush because he would have eliminated any alleged Nader "factor."
I found this comment by Pride pretty revealing here:
As anyone who lives in New Hampshire or watched my appearance on Keller's show knows, we get a lot of political mail up here during primary season. And the mailers seem to be randomly flailing at voters. There doesn't seem to be a cohesive strategy to the mailers except to perform the voter outreach.
Yesterday, when I got home from work, there were five political mailers: One from Hillary Clinton's campaign, another from AFSCME PEOPLE supporting Clinton, and two from New Hampshire WOMEN VOTE!, "a project of EMILY's List," supporting Clinton, all addressed to my wife. Another 527, Alliance for A New America, sent a pro-John Edwards mailer to me, obviously targeting indie voters for the candidate in the state.
The Clinton campaign mailer continues with that theme a month thing I have been talking about for a while. "Ready to Deliver Change ..." and "Real Solutions for America's Greatest Challenges ..." There are four planks: Health Care, Economy, Foreign Policy, and Energy, touching on pretty basic themes Hillary has promoted although there is nothing about taking on the special interests or going after corporate greed, like her television ads. Interestingly, Hillary has also not, to my knowledge, sponsored any bills to create "green collar jobs" or troop withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, she has voted to give President Bush the ability to invade Iran if he wants. The flyer also contains lots of smiling, politically correct faces at campaign events [The veteran, a handful of seniors, the Yuppie mom embarrassingly smirking that she can't believe she is meeting Hillary, and the Latino family].
But one picture is really striking: In the lower right hand corner there is a dark-haired, slightly upper middle class mom-type with a young blond-haired girl on her lap [I'm assuming it is her daughter] with a transfixed look on her face. If you have ever lived on the edge, you know the look: It is one of slight desperation and deep concern but still hopeful that something can be done to fix your problems and those of the nation. It is one of those, "I was sold a bill of goods and it is not quite what I expected," looks. It is a visual theme that should be familiar to those who watch political campaigns because it is something Bill Clinton used quite effectively. My question though is this: What happens to that woman if Hillary is elected and then fails on all her promises like her husband did or gives us more bad legislation like her husband did? What happens this time, if she frits away another health care mandate with secret meetings and pharmaceutical stock manipulation like she did last time? And, how did she become worth close to $50 million, according to her 2005 disclosure forms, on a salary of about $133,000 annually and $4 million from book deals?
The AFSCME mailer talks about Hillary being "the clear choice" to fix health care noting that she is "Ready to be President from Day One," as if none of the other candidates are ready. On this mailer, unlike the previous AFSCME mailers or ads, there are no cheap shots against Barack Obama and no finger-pointing-blame at Edwards, which is a nice change to the positive for the union.
The two New Hampshire WOMEN VOTE! mailers are very similar, featuring [probably] two New Hampshire women who have endorsed Hillary. One, Amy Michaels, is a mom with two boys, who calls Hillary "determined to make things better" [A Google of variations of Amy Michaels, Hillary Clinton, and New Hampshire, yield no tangible results]. Inside, another theme: "Hillary Clinton: A Tested, Experienced Leader to Change America." The flyer rattles off a bunch of topics, including this one, which I found amusing "Corporate greed has eroded our middle class." Of course, this ignores the fact that husband Bill and the Democrats in Congress had a HUGE role in the economic crisis we are facing since it started back before Bush was selected by the Supreme Court. But beyond that, no real answers to anything. What is Hillary going to do? Tell us some specifics. Sorry, they aren't there. As well, the anti-corporate greed candidates are Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, not Hillary. If EMILY's List is so concerned about corporate greed, why aren't they backing the anti-corporate candidates? Because they don't have the correct plumbing?
The second mailer seems to be geared towards the single, early- to mid-20s woman, with Kelly McCall on the front, dressed in a leather jacket with bangs that typically went out in the late 1990s [Note: No North Shore bug shield bangs which are still popular in some parts of Manch. A Google of Kelly McCall, Hillary Clinton, and New Hampshire, yielded some Blue New Hampshire posts about the mailers as well as a blog post by a guy in Florida talking about a woman who hand cycled 2,500 miles for the American Lung Association. The point of doing the Googling is to find out if these women are plants or if they actually live in New Hampshire]. Again, not a lot of substance as to what Hillary will do for the 20-something who might be barely struggling to live, possibly with a roommate, but still facing down the economic strife that many of us are looking at.
Question: Why is EMILY's List wasting its money on the mailers which tell the voters nothing about Hillary Clinton and give women no real reasons to vote for her other than the fact she is a woman?
Update: I was thinking about this on the drive to work this morning. I wonder if this group put the money up for the canvassers that the New Hampshire Citizens Alliance was advertising for. I talked about that issue over here: ["Interesting job offer ..."].
The Alliance for A New America has done a few mailers in the state with different themes. This latest one is about fighting special interests in Washington. It has a couple on the cover having a serious discussion [or argument, if you will] about the state of their finances. "New Hampshire families are losing out because specials interest money controls Washington." Well, umm, duh. Inside it states: "John Edwards has a plan to defeat the big corporations that have hijacked our government so they get rich at the expense of our families." Hmm, OK. Whattayagonna do? Tax relief for the middle class, quality health insurance, protect benefits, education opportunities and energy independence, it states. Later, on the back, there is a challenge: "Ask all the candidates what their plans are ..."
That's right: Ask them all. Get specific. I think you'll be surprised by the the lack of information you get.
I don't know if I listed the results of the IndependentPrimary.com poll or not so I will do it here, again. It was a runaway for Kucinich and Ron Paul. On the Democratic side, Kuinich received 67 percent of the vote or 61,477 votes. Edwards was second with 7,614 and Obama was third with 3,847 votes. The rest trailed far behind. Over on the Republican side, Paul received 23,524 votes or 93 percent. None of the other candidates cracked more than 1,000 votes, which should not be a surprise. Alan Keyes received 30 votes while John Cox received 0. Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney received 80 percent of the Green vote with 250 votes. Ralph Nader was not listed because, technically, he isn't a candidate [yet]. "None of the Above" received 909 votes. I wonder why there isn't a Libertarian primary listed, especially with Paul garnering so much support.
Another vote will be taken after the New Hampshire primary [Jan.8] running through Super Duper Tuesday, Feb. 5.
The group is also raising money for a radio spot buy in New Hampshire before the primary and is being told that media buyers are saying that the larger radio stations in the state are charging $400 to $500 per spot in drive time! I can't believe that, so I'm looking into it to see if it is true. If it is, someone is ripping someone else off.
Today, I received another phone call from the Clinton campaign [603-289-4965]. Same old song and dance as before, only this time a bit of desperation in the voice of the woman making the call. I told her I wouldn't tell her who I was voting for, which caught this one off guard too. Note to the Clinton campaign: Please stop calling us!
Also, I received a robocall from Dennis Kucinich making his pitch to New Hampshire voters. I wondered what was going on with the call because when I first answered, there was a bit of silence and then a voice saying, "Democrat ... take three ..." and then Dennis spoke. Note to Dennis: You might want to have them edit your recording before sending out the robocalls. It will sound more professional.
Another note on Kucinich: He asked his supporters to give their second choice votes in the Iowa caucuses to Obama: ["Kucinich Asks Supporters to Back Obama"].
Some may remember that Kucinich did this in 2004 and it clearly helped buoy Edwards to a second place finish in that caucus.
I asked Dennis during a Q&A after an event at St. Paul's School that year if throwing support to Edwards was a shrewd political move to solidify trade and anti-invasion support behind his campaign and damage both the Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean campaigns.
"Wow. I don't know how to respond to that. Wow. You can follow up with something else if you like."When asked again if the theory were true, Kucinich refused to answer the question. It will be interesting to see what will happen this time around.
Laura Clawson over at BlueHampshire [She's Miss Laura on DailyKos] tells everyone who she is voting for here: ["My Vote 1/8/8"]. Her two colleagues there have endorsed Chris Dodd.
Mike Pride, one of the Concord Monitor's editorial board, explains the newspaper's decision to endorse Clinton and John McCain here: ["The story behind the 'Monitor's' presidential endorsements"].
Some people in the newspaper business don't think you should write these kinds of columns, explaining why a newspaper came to a certain decision; others do. I tend to side with the airing of information versus the fourth estate wall.
I do find the piece a pretty good explanation of how the newspaper came to its endorsements. But, frankly, it was not surprising. I knew that the Monitor would take the safe route this year and go with both Clinton and McCain. I just had a hunch in my gut and it proved to be correct. The editorial board really seems to take things from a baby boomer/Yuppie point of view and you can see it in the endorsement of Clinton ...
Clinton's ambitious to-do list for her first few weeks in office gives us confidence that her priorities are right and that she would act swiftly to make a positive difference.But what real, tangible things has she done in six-plus years? She hasn't done anything!
In addition, by endorsing McCain, they indirectly drive independent voters away from Edwards and Obama, which in turn, helps Hillary.
Sidebar: The Boston Globe and other newspapers seem to be taking the same strategy with their editorials. This was done in 2000 too and led to a virtual collapse of Bill Bradley's campaign against Al Gore. I still contend that Bradley would have won against Bush because he would have eliminated any alleged Nader "factor."
I found this comment by Pride pretty revealing here:
Monitor endorsements have tended over the years to have far more influence in elections for school board and city council than for president. Voters live busy lives, and they know we take local election campaigns seriously and try to endorse on the basis of what's good for Concord and its schools.
Future candidates can learn from this but the message might not be the best one to hear: You really need to figure out a way to get the Monitor endorsement. It isn't a guaranteed win, but it clearly doesn't hurt. And, if you don't get it, well, you better really get out there and hustle or else you are not going to win.Also, there is this:
Belman, who had written the anti-Romney editorial the previous Sunday, drafted the Clinton endorsement.No surprise there. But who wrote the previous semi-pro-Romney piece, commending him and saying he understood the nation's problems? That question was not answered and should have been. That would have been an interesting disclosure and it is too bad Pride declined to tell us.
No comments:
Post a Comment