Hillary Clinton: Mission Accomplished

On January 22, 2007, as Senator Clinton went viral with her announcement that she was, essentially, running for The White House, we noted that her first challenge was to shatter the prism of the right. We wrote,

[T]his simply is a fact of modern politics in America. For the past three decades, the right wing has employed a powerful strategy of "$ell and $mear." They insist on being the gatekeepers to public opinion and have developed a powerful machine that tells us who to like - and who to hate.

... They $mear Democratic and Progressive heroes, reducing American success stories such as George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis into humiliated historical footnotes. They destroy our leaders. They destroy those that might become our leaders. There is no Democratic or Progressive leader of any note of the last 20 years that has not been attacked.

Essentially, what we meant was:

Imagine if your worse enemies were the ones describing you and creating the world's impression of you. And imagine they did that for close to 15 years, how would people who hadn't ever met you feel about you? Exactly.

There are far too many people who have never met Hillary who have a fully-formed impression of her, usually quite negative. Not defendably negative, mind you, but more of a "I just don't like her" kind of impression.

The prism of the right.

We wrote:

This is Senator Clinton's primary challenge. Because since this strategy has been deployed, no one, not one single politician, has been in the eye of the machine longer than Senator Clinton. For almost 15 years, Americans have been bombarded with smears and negative commentary about her. Virtually every aspect of her life, personal and political, from her hairstyle to private decisions she made within her marriage, has been criticized.

That's the reality that Senator Clinton, her supporters and her staff have had to deal with every single day and to their great credit, they didn't either ignore it, as John Kerry's campaign did in 2004 on many levels, nor did they whine and complain about it.

What Hillary did was what she did in New York State.

She and her staff rolled up their sleeves and went to work. One voter at a time, one appearance at a time, one county, one district, one state. And what happened in New York State was a pretty good precursor to what is happening nationally. Today, she is at the top of the list of home state own-party favorability ratings. Her 81 percent favorability rating among Democrats in New York State is right up there at the very top, tied with Ted Kennedy's rating among Democrats in Massachusetts. And Kennedy in Massachusetts is probably the golden standard for being liked by your party in your own state.

Grudgingly, we hear from senior people in other campaigns that they are impressed at how hard she works, how good her team is, how they keep working all day, every day.

They're right. She's top in the polls and in the fundraising race not because of some unforeseeable chain of events; she's there because she understood the reality of her situation and she has outworked everyone else.

If she is our nominee, it will because of two core factors.

She didn't attempt to smash the negative perception as much as she shattered it softly and slowly -- one person at a time.

She, and her team, have worked hard, and smart.

Kudos to all of them.

Comments

[Qbear]

ALL her hard work was for NAUGHT.

When Hillary voted AYE on Kyl/Lieberman she ENDED her campaign. The sense of the Senate resolution is what Cheney will use to rationalize his attack on Iran...the­n Hillary's vote will make her more loathed than Ted Haggard at a tent revival.
I never had Hillary as my first choice as nominee, but would have held my nose and voted for her. I once hoped Obama would be her VP...now I don't. I can't/won't vote for Clinton, and if Obama was on the ticket I'd write in Edwards.

[Alegre]

Gen. Clark would disagree with your assessment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gen-wesley-clark/i-support-hillarys-posit_b_67170.html

And so do I.

[Independent voter]

You say:
There are far too many people who have never met Hillary who have a fully-formed impression of her, usually quite negative. Not defendably negative, mind you.

I say:
You don't have to step in a pile of dung in order to know that it smells bad.


Perhaps you should wait until the people have a chance to vote before you hold the coronation.

[Alegre]

How RUDE!

[LittleBrother]

I'm touched by this moving portrait of the candidate as seen through Hillary Kool-Aid goggles.

It's totally On Message: Hillary is terrific, and in any case she's inevitable. This is your chance to get in on the ground floor! I'm sure Peter Daou and Hillary are very pleased with the work you're doing.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Ben Dixon]

Yes Hillary has a lot of baggage to overcome, and she is working very hard to do so. But to say mission accomplished? Well just remember the last big name political type who used that term.

[SpaceCommand]

Somehow the image of Evita Peron comes to mind, however you do not read it in the mainstream press.

Certainly Hillary would be wonderful to talk to at a a political coffee, yet the lingering feeling of a Bush-Clinton dynasty begs the question if there is someone else outside this coterie out of almost 300 million people who would do a better job.

One would feel better if this leadership task of the Presidency came from a more random perspective, than from a sense of the preordained. That is all together more poignant when the voting machines, and actual polling issues are taken into counsel.

Honestly I'd rather have a random Mid-west Grandma who won the Publisher's Clearinghouse, that someone whose constituency is Murdock at lunch every week.

[coonce]

If Hillary is in the lead it's not because she's Changed or worked hard, it's because the media and the GOP have put her there.

On the day that Bush got elected (put on) to office in 2000, the media (I can give you names if you like) started talking about Hillary starting her campaign for President in 2008.

They haven't stopped.

Chris Matthews discussed Hillary for a full 20 minutes of his 30 minute show last Sunday. He also does it on his Hardball show. Foxnews and CNN does the same thing.

Your rarely hear a word about any other candidate. Except for GOP candidates and even THEN they will pit her up against them.

The GOP want Hillary - notice how they keep quiet about Bill's PAST....SO FAR anyway. Wait till March 2008.

Coonsey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

[RDixon]

Why is it that we the voters are being force fed a steady diet of Clinton?

It seems that some one wants me to believe that the 08 election has already happened.

Tricks?

Tricks are for kids and silly rabbits and we the voters are neither of those.

Even with a trillion dollars, Clinton could NOT win the general election.

I question why we are being set by an elite group of so-called Democrats up for yet another defeat from the Republicans.

Because the Republicans could dig up Regan's bones and run them against Hillary and win by a landslide.

Hell, even a blind fool can see all the puppet strings attached to Hillary.

And those strings are stretched across the big pond and end in Israel.

[Alegre]

No one's force-feeding us anything.

Her staff's the only ones busting their back-sides to this degree. Just look at what they've put out re the healthcare plan for instance..­.

About half a dozen different position papers on how her plan helps various constituencies.

Impact papers on all of the early states.

And they lined up quotes from some pretty heavy-hitting folks before it was even released.

They work hard AND they work smart, lay the ground work and then line up appearances for her on every show imagineable (Letterman and ALL 5 of the Sunday shows). They also put together this remarkable web-cast where Hillary takes her case right to us - the voters.

That's just one issue / initiative. Look at how they've coordinated things with Bill...

He released his new book - GIVING - right around Labor Day, the traditional start to the campaign season. This tied in well with his annual Clinton Global Initiative conference which also got him a lot of press. He hit two or three of the sunday shows last week so that kept her momentum going strong.

Come on - you can't blame her success on any sort of "force-feeding". They work hard & they know what they're doing. Nothing more - nothing less.

[bringbackimus]

Oh yes, Clinton and her staff are backed by the second biggest slime machine in politics with several years of experience, ala Mark Penn, Terry Mc., Carville, Paul Begela, and most of all her hubby Billy. How much of money pumped into her campaign in the third quarter is honest money? Norman Hsu is likely just the tip of the iceberg. I am a Democrat who has not been fooled by the Clintons.

[apduncan1]

Ahem.

And how do you explain she turning Republican?

Her vote on Iran gives us an inkling of things to come; she supports the invasion and occupation of Iraq and now she is doing the same paving the road for an attack on Iran.

She is no more than a Republican Lite.

[Alegre]

Ahem yourself ;o)

How do you explain her support among folks like Gen. Wesley Clark http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gen-wesley-clark/i-support-hillarys-posit_b_67170.htmll) and Joe Wilson?