| It took me forever to find it, and I feel sick by linking to Free Republic, but this important nugget on Howard Dean's fall in Iowa by his pollster Paul Maslin seems quite relevant now (emphasis mine):
Black Sunday
On Thursday, January 8, the Dean campaign was rocked by the news that NBC was airing a videotape of its candidate, as a guest commentator on a Canadian public-affairs program several years earlier, criticizing the Iowa caucuses. The tape dominated Iowa news coverage through the following weekend, even overshadowing Dean's endorsement by the popular Tom Harkin. Then, that Sunday, January 11, came three negative developments: the state's dominant newspaper, The Des Moines Register, endorsed John Edwards; Dean shouted down a Republican heckler at a campaign event; and, exhausted and unbriefed, Dean was forced to admit, under fire from Al Sharpton, that he had never hired an African-American to a cabinet post during his time as the governor of Vermont.
Before "the scream," Dean's testy words for a heckler at one of his campaign events played into a long-running narrative that he and his supporters were "angry" and, as a result, un-presidential. This narrative was fueled by the Bush campaign, the Republican Noise machine, many Democrats, and many members of the establishment media alike. It was a textbook example of Daou's triangle closing on Dean, resulting in a negative conventional wisdom that he was an angry candidate. "The scream" didn't create this impression of Dean in the media or the national consciousness, it simply cemented it. In fact, "the scream" probably would have been a minor event if the previous "angry" narrative had not been established. As such, Dean's exchange with a Republican heckler at one of his campaign events was just as, if not more, important than the scream itself. That incident was replayed repeatedly on local Iowa media which, combined with a perceived negative campaign as well as the national narrative against Dean, had turned Iowa voters off him before the caucuses even began.
Reading about Hillary Clinton's heated exchange with a Democrat at a campaign event yesterday immediately made me think of Dean's incident back on January 11th, 2004. On the surface, the incidents seem quite similar:
Rolph asked Clinton to explain her Senate vote Wednesday for a resolution urging the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Rolph interpreted that measure as giving Bush authority to use military action against the Iranians.
"Well, let me thank you for the question, but let me tell you that the premise of the question is wrong and I'll be happy to explain that to you," Clinton began.
She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."
"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."
"Well then, let me finish," Clinton responded.
Rolph, from nearby Nashua, fired back that no one had sent him the material.
"Well, then, I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places," she said.
Clinton then explained that she had gone to the Senate floor in February to state that Bush does not have the authority to use military action against Iran and that she is working on legislation to put that into law. Rolph once again challenged her recent vote, suggesting that it amounted to giving Bush a free hand..
"I'm sorry, sir, it does not," she said, her voice showing her exasperation. "No, no, let me just say one other thing because I respect your research. There was an earlier version that I opposed. It was dramatically changed ... I would never have voted for the first version. The second version ripped out what was considered very bellicose and very threatening language."
Now, this might not read as entirely negative for Clinton, and in fact not as bad as early reports on the incident indicated. However, remember that Dean's "scream" was grossly exaggerated by the media by using the audio only from Dean's microphone, rather than the room where he was giving the speech. The key to whether this incident will be as damaging to Clinton as Dean's back and forth with a Republican heckler is not the substance of the event, but whether or not it is placed within and helps to solidify a larger negative narrative on Clinton. To date, that narrative on Clinton is primarily that she is too much of an "insider," responsive mainly to lobbyists, donors and policy elites, and thus lacking the ability to lead or bring real change. This has been the main line of attack that both Edwards and Obama have used against her.
Could the incident with Rolph play into that narrative? Possibly, but so far I haven't seen either media coverage play it as such, nor have I seen other candidates use it as an attack on her in that way. The most effective attack angle here, both for Obama (with his record breaking number of activists) and Edwards (who is running on populist rhetoric), would be to argue that this is an example of Clinton is dismissing "regular people" who disagree with her as campaign plants. Other attacks simply won't stick, since there are no narratives to back them up. A "Clinton is angry" image simply can't be constructed whole cloth this deep into the campaign and her political career. Such a label even goes against some of the long-running right-wing narrative about Clinton being emotionaless and aloof.
No one, especially Republicans, are going to pin Clinton as the "angry" candidate. The "elitist" narrative, however, might hold a bit more danger. It remains to be seen if anyone will place this incident in that context. Otherwise, it will fade away in just a matter of days. |
