« Hazardous Morals | Main | The Great Divergence (And The Krog!) »
September 19, 2007
"She Changed Our Thinking..."
I agree with Walter Shapiro, this is pretty brilliant ad-writing. Hillary's new advertisement, currently on the air in New Hampshire, focuses on her health care plan, and summarizes 1994 by saying, "she changed our thinking when she introduced universal health care to America.."
Right, she made us hate her. But this is quite smart: It contextualizes her plan as the culmination of years of work, coming within an unbroken arc of Clinton fighting for health reform. At the least, it tries to define her narrative before anyone else can do it for her, and rather run from 1994, or admit to mistakes, attempts to recast that battle as a positive experience, even a character strength Anyway, heres the ad:
September 19, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
"Right, she made us hate her. But this is quite smart"
I think this Noam Scheiber post covers the topic:
The distinction between your friends and your enemies is less important than the distinction between people you know and people you don't.
Posted by: Petey | Sep 19, 2007 10:54:01 AM
everytime i hear republicans shredding her plan and mocking it as "hillarycare"...talking about how much it will cost us, and i think of the billions going to blackwater to "protect and defend our interests" in iraq, i wonder how so many people can buy into that way of thinking.
Posted by: jacqueline | Sep 19, 2007 11:14:18 AM
It's certainly effective... though I can't help thinking it would be more effective if they could put these thoughts into the mouths of "real people" instead of a "commanding male narrator" - someone talking about their need for insurance, a Mom whose kid has SCHIP, someone who got reduced cost vaccines... Her biggst problem, it seems to me, is that these "you really should like her" ads don't show us anyone who actually does. And you can't solve her PR problem - where conservatives make not liking her personal and really visceral - without, I think, showing people that, yes, it's okay to like her because others do. I don't disagree with these generalized statements on her good work. Doesn't make me feel one lick better about the fact that she's looking so inevitable at this point.
Posted by: weboy | Sep 19, 2007 11:28:15 AM
On health care, this is where Clinton has the chance to win the debate. If she can get people thinking "hey that's right - Clinton was talking about this stuff ten years ago. She knows what she's talking about" then she'll do allright on the health care front. If the narrative turns to "well, she couldn't do it ten years ago, why should we believe she can do it now" she'll lose on the health care issue.
Not that I think that the health care issue will turn out to be the most important issue for a candidate in either the primaries or the general - I think it'll be important for the Dem candidates to have a plan, but that the plans themselves won't be that important (unless one is obviously stupid). The war and the economy (mainly the housing implosion, but also underemployment) are going to be much more important in the Dem primaries than the particulars of the different plans.
Posted by: NonyNony | Sep 19, 2007 11:33:30 AM
I see no one answered my question other than to say in the other diary that she has said it will be her top priority.
So I will repeat it here- are there any policy reasons why it should take until the end of the her second term, when she will not be exposed to any political risks, for her plan to take 8 years to be fully implemented.
Telling me that it will be a top priority doesn't answer the question. It's easy to talk theory or horse race messaging. Let's talk about credibility and what I am looking for is an explanation of why her program unlike others will take 8 years.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 19, 2007 11:35:42 AM
I would also l ike to know which parts she is planing to implement and when? Again that tells me what is real in her plan and what is rhectoric.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 19, 2007 11:40:03 AM
I would also l ike to know which parts she is planing to implement and when? Again that tells me what is real in her plan and what is rhectoric.
I wouldn't. I see no reason to give the right wing more propaganda opportunities than is necessary.
Posted by: Jasper | Sep 19, 2007 11:49:15 AM
akaison, the questions you have seem better directed to Hillary Clinton, or her people. Any number of people have pointed out that you could interpret what she actually said in a number of different ways. I think the proposal she outlined, and her intent to work on it isn't something that she's just not going to do anything about for four years in office, but save for the next run. If that were so, why bother being quite as detailed as she has been? And in any case, just because you continue to insist that "she's not going to do anything about healthcare until her [supposed] second term" doesn't make it so. But at this point, the only people who can clarify what her comments meant in the way you want are people who work for Hillary Clinton. Go ask them.
Posted by: weboy | Sep 19, 2007 11:51:27 AM
"The war and the economy (mainly the housing implosion, but also underemployment) are going to be much more important in the Dem primaries than the particulars of the different plans."
Bernanke will do his best to hide it until 2009. Then crash us if a Democrat gets elected. Ain't gonna be no health care in a long recession.
Akaison, she is just too good. Sorry. Edwards is toast.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Sep 19, 2007 11:57:02 AM
"Akaison, she is just too good. Sorry. Edwards is toast."
Thankfully, bob mcmanus is not the controlling legal authority on that matter.
Posted by: Petey | Sep 19, 2007 12:02:50 PM
FWIW, between now and Thanksgiving, we'll be in the "Hillary Is Inevitable." phase of the campaign.
Between Thanksgiving and Iowa will be the "Is Hillary Inevitable?" phase of the campaign.
And then the good folks of Iowa and the other early states will actually decide.
Posted by: Petey | Sep 19, 2007 12:07:43 PM
Petey, I plan on voting for Edwards in the primary, but I am quixotic with a smile. Sometimes.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Sep 19, 2007 12:08:05 PM
"she changed our thinking when she introduced universal health care to America.."
Right, she made us hate her.
sez Ezra.
Funny, I don't hate her. If you do, Ezra, and if this is your reason, then I think you need some medical care.
Posted by: David Lloyd-Jones | Sep 19, 2007 12:27:37 PM
"If you do, Ezra, and if this is your reason, then I think you need some medical care."
Huh. I think that setting back the cause of universal healthcare two decades is an entirely sound reason to hate her.
Posted by: Petey | Sep 19, 2007 12:33:13 PM
In the immortal words of Mace Windu:
"Veeeery dangerous pudding."
Posted by: Fnor | Sep 19, 2007 12:45:28 PM
weboy-
You and others responded to the POLICY question I asked? Where is your response? Please cut and paste where you or others have answered why in terms of POLICY she needs 8 years to implement her plan?
Unlike you, by the way, I adapted to Ezra's response by asking a more specific follow up. Time table would seem the most basic of questions to ask regarding a politicians intentions. It's certainly more testable than feelings.
I call this my Bush test. If this were Bush, would I let him get away this statement about his priorities?
Finally, I have watched people write dissertations on this issue on this blog. I find it illuminating that you can't give me an answer to this very basic question. It tells me a lot about the character issue.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 19, 2007 12:54:47 PM
I see no one answered my question other than to say in the other diary that she has said it will be her top priority.
Akaison
You're not asking a question, you're assuming a correct position and refusing to believe any possible counterargument that would contradict it.
This is why every point someone makes you dismiss it as "not good enough".
Also no one has commented on how long their plan will take to implement so you can't claim that only the Clinton plan will take a similar timeframe
Posted by: Phil | Sep 19, 2007 1:13:20 PM
Phil,
I asked a question- again why will it take 8 years to implement her policy? Assume for argument sake I do have a position, that doesn't change the question, or the fact you and no one else has bothered to answer me. At this point I assume you don't have one.
Provide specific reasoning, and I won't have to make assumptions like this as to why you aren't. So far all someone managed to come up with is- well these sort of things take time. You wonkish types love long posts coming up with detailed explainations for this or that subsection of a proposal, and yet here, on the most basic question I am hitting up against a lot of restistance, touchy feely talk and, now, its whether I will accept your answer or not. Fascinating to read it. Love the ending where you basically avoid the whole question by somehow thinking other candidates change the question. THey don't and you still haven't given an answer to a very basic question. For those of you who insist on pretending not to get my question- I will repeat it each time you post with avoidances- why in terms of policy should it take 8 years to implement her plan?
Posted by: akaison | Sep 19, 2007 1:27:41 PM
Ezra,
You quoted a reader on your website in regard to Clinton's move to neutralize Edwards with a Universal Insurance Program [UPI] of her own.
"There's not enough difference on the substance among the Dems to matter, which is deliberate...Now this is no longer an argument over who has the best plan, but rather who is the one who could get it done."
I agree with you, it was very clever for her to cut the legs out from under her fellow Democrat. I should mention in passing, it's a skill the Clintons are noted for...see 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000.
Fair enough, so the statement begs the question, who will have the longest coattails? Who will bring the most progressive group of legislators to congress to accomplish this goal?
I offer this conjecture:
1] Hillary, will depress the Democratic base and help motivate the Republican base.
2] Obama, will motivate the Democratic base and help motivate the Republican base.
3] Edwards, will motivate the Democratic base and help depress the Republican base.
With Obama getting the nod over Edwards on fully motivating the Democratic base.
This presumes the Republicans nominate somebody from the Northeast corner of the US. I could be wrong on this...if Thompson can overcome the "pretty young thing" thing with the base...as Reagan was able to overcome his history of divorce.
For the record, whatever you think of statements above, the Clintons have a record with coattails...it's pretty awful...except 1992, they won while Democrats lost ground.
Here's a quick walk down memory lane: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,140027,00.html
Okay, I'm done pontificating.
Posted by: S Brennan | Sep 19, 2007 1:33:15 PM
Hillary has 85% favorables among Democrats. Anyone who thinks she will depress the Democratic base is most likely projecting their own distaste for her onto others.
Posted by: Steve | Sep 19, 2007 1:41:42 PM
agree with steve- she doesn't suprise the dem base, the real concern is that she turns out GOP and independents in greater numbers who are against her than there are enough of us. that in terms of perception- she will have t he same impact that say a bush had on progressives- remember 2004? ABB? well for the conservatives it could be ABC and the question becomes is our base big enough to overtake theirs, and more importantly what does this mean in the swing districts.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 19, 2007 1:46:05 PM
Oh please. Hillary didnt have an "enlightenment" period that showed her the errors of her ways regarding her 94 plan.
What happened is that the insurance industry bought her off and now she's getting ready to hand them 100 billion dollars per year in more revenues.
Tell me again why anybody would propose paying inefficient middle men who provide no value to the system an extra 100 billion dollars per year.
There's absolutely zero good reasons to waste money in that fashion. Fix the fucking problem people and stop moving money around and making CEOs and rich investors even richer.
Posted by: joe blow | Sep 19, 2007 1:47:46 PM
Steve,
Put the link up that you got 85% from, I want to see how you spun it to 85%.
Because, I don't see that here:
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27163
Or here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content
/article/2007/07/22/AR2007072201135.html
Or here:
http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/
Now I know Hillary's hacks have to do their job, which is to keep voters from having a say, but could you at least try to do it well enough to be believable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Posted by: S Brennan | Sep 19, 2007 1:54:35 PM
"agree with steve- she doesn't suprise the dem base, the real concern is that she turns out GOP and independents in greater numbers who are against her than there are enough of us."
Yup.
Posted by: Petey | Sep 19, 2007 1:59:11 PM
Do you think Hillary realizes that it would be bad for the rest of the Democrats if she were running for President? Do you think that there is any part of her soul that laments this?
Posted by: mpowell | Sep 19, 2007 2:44:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
