It Was Hillary's Oprah Moments That Did it!

Folks who work media and politics understand the notion that perception trumps reality -- most of the time. In Hillary's New Hampshire upset, it was her three Oprah moments that changed women's perceptions and derailed the speeding Obama bandwagon. Three? Uhhuh. The first one came during the New Hampshire debate when, responding to why people didn't like her, she said something about "....that's makes me unhappy.....I'm not all that bad, etc." The moment seemed spontaneous and real. A national audience got a glimpse behind the curtain of the tightly produced candidate. Obama's reaction to it was hard to read but some saw it as dismissive and re-enforcing for Hillary. The second Oprah moment came with the oft-repeated MSNBC video when she nuzzles Chris Mathews, gazes into his eyes, affectionately touches his cheek and says a few sweet words to the blushing and pleased commentator. It certainly looked real.

But it's Monday's emotional TV appearance that was the supreme Oprah moment. Millions of women see this kind of heart-felt, vulnerable moment everyday on daytime TV with Oprah and others. Monday, they saw a person they can relate to, a woman expressing herself, being vulnerable, authentic -- as opposed to the manufactured presentation Hillary usually delivers. There are those who see these Oprah moments as calculated by the candidate. Could be. Who knows? Politics does beget cynicism. Almost doesn't matter. It's perceived by voters as real, sympathetic and genuine. You can hear daytime TV viewers saying, "why didn't she show this before. I would have liked her sooner?" It's a complete 180 from the often compared Muskie moment in a long-ago New Hampshire time when tearing up was a campaign killer.

It's clear the Clinton people understand what happened in New Hampshire. In her victory speech, she calls it, "...finding her voice" and talking "..from the heart." Up to now, she has been uncomfortable talking about herself. This could be a dilemma as she goes forward. Will she be able to use her new, and uncomfortable voice, in appropriate ways or will the campaign try to manufacture other 'real' Oprah moments -- which is exactly when it becomes calculating and unreal.

Comments

[SharonWantsToTalk]

Tom, you absolutely have hit the nail on the head in your post. I, as well as my co workers were shocked when while watching Mondays "emotional appearance" heard myself utter "geez, I kinda feel sorry for her." I'm sure many undecideds (mostly women) in NH were swayed. I voted for and loved her as a NY Senator. But lost confidence after her continued war support. I still won't vote for her in NY's primary, but I can understand why, given the fevered few days between primary's that NH did.

[carol]

I vote for more "real Oprah" moments. The Clinton gang don't trust transparency and spontaneity. In fact, I just saw her ad to NH voters: "I listened to you and found my voice." Whatever. I believe she had a real genuine moment the other night and teared up. All of the candidates must be perpetually exhausted. Then, some wonderkind in the campaign thought: "Hey..we've found our winning strategy." It could get pretty thick.

[jonnie66]

HILLARY CLINTON MAKES HISTORY FOR ALL WOMAN OF EVERY RACE. A TRUE EXAMPLE OF UNITING PEOPLE AND NOT DIVIDING THEM BY RACE. Hillary Clinton makes History the First Woman to Win New Hampshire Primary, When black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women .Why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? There is still no "right" way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what. I'm supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country's talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. If you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. What worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex. What worries me is that she is accused of "playing the gender card" by the old boys' club, while Obama seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations. Male seen as gender-free when supporting their own,female voters seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn't. Reporters ignore Obama dependence on the old, for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy, while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo. Some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age. This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees.