Rarely do we get a look at the author's non-artistic proofs to see how the author wrote the article. This could be a very interesting pedagogical tool for teaching argumentation.
Green's method:
To find out, I approached a number of current and former Clinton staffers and outside consultants and asked them to share memos, e-mails, meeting minutes, diaries—anything that would offer a contemporaneous account. The result demonstrates that paranoid dysfunction breeds the impulse to hoard. Everything from major strategic plans to bitchy staff e-mail feuds was handed over.
What would be useful about these non-artistic proofs is that this evidence does not concern after the fact justification to a large public in the way that an interview is a newspaper article would.
Instead, Green provides is with the emails from major players in the campaign as they attempt to persuade one another over the direction of the campaign. This could be a great resource to see how the arguments developed internally, especially in relation to what arguments and strategies were selected, as well as the consequences of those arguments.
Again, I cannot explain how amazing this resource is. Check it out. Click on the summaries to examine the actually documents.
After a quick read, here are a few thoughts:
1) Not running in 2004. I thought this would be her best bet since 2004 presented a weak field. It would have been close though, maybe too close for because of war. Yet, according to the article, polling numbers were there. One of the main problems of her campaign is she never could master kairos.
2) Target audience: women, lower & middle income, and play defense with men and upper class. A memo by Penn suggests to tap into the consciousness of sexism:
"1) Start with a base of women. a. For these women you represent a breaking of barriers. b. The winnowing out of the most competent and qualified in an unfair, male dominated world. c. The infusion of a woman and a mother’s sensibilities into a world of war and neglectTo counter this theme of division, Penn focuses on the Lower and Middle Class to show you care, you are one of them, and you support their goals. Additionally, Penn's strategy was to, "Contest the black vote at every opportunity. Keep him pinned down there," meaning make Obama defend this vote to cut in his base and... prevent him from expanding. Green notes that this is the coalition that worked for Clinton and this memo, "reinforces rather than confronts the Clintons’ biases."
3) The odd connection between Edwards and Clinton, especially in light of his recent allegations... Edwards says his vote on Iraq was wrong but Clinton does not. This is tragic for her. Edwards hurts her in Iowa, which hurts her nationally.
I do not believe in what ifs, especially about Iowa since the people there were not going to vote for her. He populist personae for Pennsylvania would not translate there because of demographics and ideology. Her best bet would have been to avoid Iowa as it proved too costly. But Edwards did hurt here there in perception...
One interesting point on the press and the Clinton campaign (and there are many) that concerns the pre-Iowa time frame: "The more the Clinton team became paralyzed by conflict, the more it was forced to rely on the press to write negative stories that would weaken Obama—to, in effect, perform the very function it was unable to do for itself." The failure of Clinton was the failure to drive the narrative. This explanation doesn't occur, well it doesn't occur here. Well, maybe because focusing on Obama's 3rd grade essay "I want to be President" is the reason. Poor judgment.
And the beginning of the end was Iowa. No matter how the media tried, the race was not competitive throughout the primary.
Update II:
This article has a terrible ending. Maybe it is because of space requirements but it is still terrible.
5 comments:
Touring the internet buzz over this piece, it appears to be having two principal effects, at the moment.
1)Obama supporters experiencing yet another jolt of righteous vindication, and relatedly, finding yet another reason to celebrate the reconfiguration of political alliances. Not only can they win without the Clintons, but it is better for the country that they do so.
2)Clinton supporters experiencing yet another reason to coalesce around their heroine. Whose argument that they should now be supporting Obama, BTW, is the only one of her ideas that they are not taking as gospel.
I have done only superficial surfing today....but I think there here are a few thoughts...
1) I am not sure where you get point one from.
2) I still do not get the coalescing. I saw a few comments on talk left state that this article just reinforces all of her virtues. The only explanation can be is that she did well with infighting. Of course, as she ran on managerial experience, this article is a direct blow to her argument. She did not know how to handle a campaign and could not make the necessary decisions to win. On top of that, her campaign imploded, which reinforces her lack of experience and lack of judgment for picking so many people who could not work together and undermined one another.
3) There is a lot of scapegoating to protect Clinton. It's the media, the sexism, the author of the article. The article is not well written but it is the non-artistic evidence from the memos which is the most damning aspect. Sure you say that some people are protecting their interests by releasing the memos but you cannot say that for all of the memos and all of the people.
The media is a curious charge as there is a history of Clinton campaign attacking the media over important criticism (Anne Kornblut was attacked for reporting on how she covered, accurately, the 2006 Senate run.) It is one thing to work the refs to get an advantage. however, when you threaten the refs you damn yourself...
4) Unity and Division: it is interesting to wonder if this will help or hurt the Dems. Discussions of what ifs may or may not. I am not sure if it is helping Clinton supporters move over to Obama even though the evidence against the Clinton campaign is strong.
Why have you only been superficially surfing? It isn't like you're busy these days, or anything. ;-)
Just go to the usual Pro-Obama sites, the ones that have commenters and the ones that do not.
Talk Left is the only trafficked web site Harrogate knows about that has been sympathetic to Hill this season. The commenters on that site are pissed off. As you say, much of it is at the media, how the memos are being spun, etc.
Finally, Harrogate himself was unmoved by the piece. Which may be quite telling of how little it will affect REAL Clinto supporters, since Harrogate was never emotionally invested in, nor trusted, Hill. He only preferred her to, and trusted her more than, Obama.
As for your comment that by attacking the refs one damns oneself.
Hmmm. Harrogate assumes that this observation of yours refers to the practical consequences of such an attack. As in, how it will look to the public. Or as in, if you threaten the refs they'll only become more hostile, and the "calls" will thereby worsen.
Surely you do not mean in a moral or ethical sense that it is somehow wrong to attack members of the American media establishment.
Or that even the term "refs" is reasonably applicable at all, unless of course in the sense that Professional Wrestling events, and NBA games, have "referees."
On attacking refs...it is the practical consequences.
It reflects prudential judgment. Throughout the primary, the Clinton campaign thought it could "control" the press by attacking reporters, threatening access to Bill Clinton to prevent a story on Hillary for Vanity Fair, the Schuster & MSNBC Fiasco. There is a difference between trying to persuade the media to cover your campaign in a certain way and threaten the media over access, trying to destroy the credibility of writers, or trying to get reporters fired.
For MSNBC, when the Clinton campaigned went after Schuster, they completely lost the ability to persuade others to view the campaign sympathetically. Besides stating that people should be fired for speech, which does not establish a good ethos, it creates a hostile relationship.
Now, I think that most of the media personalities have inflated egos who need to be criticized but attacking their career isn't wise. The media does not hold the power to tell people what to think but they do focus our attention.
Post a Comment