Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info
TOPIC: "The Curse of the Wow Factor" (Gail Collins, Op-Ed, The New York Times, 4/10/10)


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
"The Curse of the Wow Factor" (Gail Collins, Op-Ed, The New York Times, 4/10/10)
Permalink  
 


Gail Collins has been a reliable reporter and I really respect her perspective.

Read @ The New York Times

Op-Ed Columnist

"

The Curse of the Wow Factor

Published: April 9, 2010

In the middle of 2008, Hillary Clinton transformed herself from a perfectly-fine-but-slightly-boring presidential candidate to a really terrific campaigner. This all happened too late to help her candidacy. But some of us hoped that it might be the beginning of a new era. Women in politics had always had a reputation for being honest and steady and hard-working. Maybe some of the next generation would also have a wow factor.

That is exactly what happened. Except the smart and steady women were not the ones who got the wow.

The sensible candidates actually seemed to get more boring. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison’s attempt to win the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Texas was one long yawn. You might have said it was the worst major campaign so far this year, if you had not seen the one where Martha Coakley tried to become the senator from Massachusetts.

Meanwhile, two of the hottest names in politics are Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

They held a joint rally in Minneapolis this week, and it was one long wow. Palin called the crowd “you who love your good hunting and fishing.” Bachmann sounded like a combination of an ancient Roman matron preparing to send her sons off to die for their country, and one of those people who walk around yelling that enemies implant secret radios in their brains while they’re sleeping.

Their superstardom is a very bad development, even though there is no reason to believe either is ever going to be elected to a position where they could do serious damage. (If Sarah Palin was seriously planning a presidential run, do you think she’d have agreed to be speaker-for-hire at the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America Convention at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas this week?)

The problem is that they’re all wow and no substance. Palin is living proof that you can be popular without having to try very hard. It appears she’s never going to respond to all the pundits who urged her to go back to Alaska and read up on current events.

And Bachmann’s fame has increased by leaps and bounds despite the fact that she, um, makes stuff up. In February, she said she had it on good authority that in Japan the government puts people who criticize the health care system “on a list” and denies them treatment. (“That takes us to gangster government at that point!”)

It’s hard to overestimate how much oxygen Palin, and now Bachmann, take out of the political conversation. When President Obama sat down for an interview with ABC News, it was Palin’s critique of his nuclear weapons initiative that he was asked to respond to. Ambitious pols who have never once been mentioned in a presidential interview, or brought a shrieking crowd to its feet, must be looking for a way to get into the act.

At the Minnesota rally, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a presidential hopeful, tried to glom onto some of the glitter, but all he could come up with was “Wall Street gets a bailout, the poor get a handout and everybody else gets their wallets out,” which is mean without being exciting. The crowd yawned.

Pawlenty is supposed to be one of the new breed of level-headed conservatives, but by next year he may be wearing snowshoes for his speeches and accusing Obama of surrendering our freedom to Finland.

There’s a feeling abroad that politicians can only get attention by sounding a little nutty. In California, Carly Fiorina, the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, seems to have gotten a boost in her bid for the Republican Senate nomination with an ad known as “Demon Sheep.” It features a herd of sheep and a man crawling across the grass on his hands and knees wearing a really cheap wolf pelt and a mask with glowing red eyes.

The campaign has cleaned up the first version, which went viral on the Web, and added more specifics about Fiorina’s opponent, Tom Campbell. But part of the fascination of the original was that it did not seem to be about anything, except a vague mention of Campbell’s role in the “2005 budget.” People do not generally keep track of budget years gone by, although perhaps in California they think of them like wine. (“The 2005 — so flaccid, so pretentious. Lacking all the structure and earthy undertones of the budget of 2003.”) The actual point seemed to be that Fiorina was a candidate so wow that she would make a demon sheep ad that did not bore the audience with any actual information.

“Something is way crazy out there,” Bachmann said last summer in Colorado, in what surely has to be one of her more accurate statements. This was the same speech in which she told the crowd to slit its wrists, although we hope she was being symbolic.

I am rethinking my opposition to boring campaigns.

"

Source link to The New York Times

Good article.  She sums up well what I have been feeling about these potential candidates.  NONE of them had any solutions to offer.

I agree with everything she is saying there, including about Fiorina's Demon sheep ad. The ad was ineffective in communicating why her opponent Campbell is a demon sheep but made Fiorina into a savvy negative advertiser. Mostly you remembered sheep and piller in retrospect.  I had hopes for Fiorina until I saw that ad.  People are smart to know who has no real substantial opposition to their opponent.

The next elections will be defined by who has better solutions on the table. People have become very informed by Rep.Stupak - he raised his first campaign brochure and pointed to his #1 agenda item - health care for all. We must elect people for their specific platform, their specific record of executive accomplishment and how they have led people, and definitely not for any wow factor. 

Whether theirs is a positive or negative leadership ought to factor in in that assessment. The LAST thing we need is another trigger-happy "load up your guns"  war-monger in a president to load on top of the debt we already have.  If we are presented with such options on the GOP side, we will most certainly re-elect Obama.

To win against Obama, GOP will need to find a MODERATE Republican who is NOT a social conservative and one with solutions. The closest in to that is probably Gingrich.  And, there is no wow factor there.  Will they nominate him? I do not know. If he is nominated, his chances are very high.  We would have much saner debates and probably some sensible dialog on what can and cannot be achieved given the facts of the circumstances what we face. Such a dialog is very much needed.


-- Edited by Sanders on Saturday 10th of April 2010 03:02:00 PM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!


Super Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 260
Date:
Permalink  
 

I respectfully disagree.  If there is a moderate Pub out there they will not run as a moderate.  The wave of discontent is strengthening the conservative meme.  Fiscally Conservative. McCain was a moderate and he didn't get any exposure until Palin arrived. 

Stupak is just another example of how the Democratic Party is not a pro-woman party.  If abortion access is supposedly a top priority to that party it seems it was demoted.

Gail Collins can bite me in her assessment of the Wow Factor.  When a man can attract a crowd he is considered charismatic, when a woman can she is considered an anomaly or even worse, a nutcase.






__________________


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Permalink  
 

Optix, Would I vote for Repub party candidates because Stupak was not pro-women enough? I dont think so.

Yes Sarah Palin drew the highly socially conservative crowd to favor John McCain. There were many pro-women factors (after Hillary) that came to play in their favor.

McCain had at least some record of bipartisanship and some record of moderate voting that was highly desirable.  But Palin had made me seriously wonder if she is the correct match.  Increasingly, she was less confident in 2008 and that made it worse.

A large constituency that was going to vote for McCain was unsure of Palin and went to lengths to assess her statements on Pro-Life.  Frankly, she seemed less emphatic on her  pro-life position in her time before and during Governor of Alaska. Since the 2008 campaign and even during that campaign, she has emerged as even more pro-life.

Michelle Bachmann was intensely pro-life in her positions. She is quick thinker and is quite articulate when facing reporters.  But she gets trapped easily as she is framing her answers before the person has completed asking questions - Chris Matthews got her to make very serious mistakes in his interview in 2008.  Most recently just last week, Michelle Bachmann made a statement about 'arming ourselves' which I did not like, especially given that the statement came AFTER there were so many threatening phonecalls and an alert on this was already issued.


A fiscally moderate to conservative, socially moderate to liberal (definitely pro-choice), articulate candidate with solutions is what I am looking for. I am sure that there is a large Hillary supporter crowd that is in the same boat.  The person does not need to 'wow' me with speeches at the top of his/her throat nor prove to be a water-walker - in other words, no need for 'wow' from man nor woman.  Really sane solid proposals that are comprehensive will help.  They do need to be able to demonstrably show that they can handle the challenges of the job and the global stage that they have to command respect from in that office.


-- Edited by Sanders on Saturday 10th of April 2010 11:42:27 PM

__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Permalink  
 

I agree with parts of Collins' assessment, but I think she's wrong about Hillary's not being able to save her campaign because she did not become an "interesting campaigner" soon enough. She won the votes. The Dems had to actually take her votes and give them to Obama in order to award him the nomination. I know it's a small point, but I think it needs to be made. Yes, Hillary was more stiff and did not appear extremely comfortable very early on, but within a brief time, she was smokin'. It was so obvious that she was in her element and enjoying the campaign. She lost because the election had been settled by the DNC, long before it ever started.

As for Palin and Brachman, I heard they were both very charismatic at the RLC. Sarah Palin has a very appealing, folksy demeanor, with which many regular, everyday Americans identify. Obviously, she did and does not deserve the gross sexism and misogyny with which she was treated, beginning in 2008, and continuing to the present. That said, unless she has developed a deeper understanding of some of the issues than she appeared to be in 2008, I would have a hard time supporting her.

If she and Brachman were on a ticket together, as some have suggested, I would have a hard time voting for them unless Brachman becomes less conservative than I believe she has been in the past. Even though it would be great to have an all female ticket elected, I would need to know how those candidates would support women's rights, including whether they would work to undermine reproductive rights.  Palin stated in 2008, that she would have no interest in doing so, despite her own religious beliefs which do not allow abortion.  I respect that.  As for Brachman, I don't know what to expect from her in this regard.

I agree with Optix that the Dems have proven themselves to be no friend to women, and the Pubs rejected the moderate candidacy of McCain. Although I'm not entirely sure any Pub could have beaten Obama - given what we know today about the campaign tricks he pulled. Plus, after Bush, a Pub presidency was destined not to happen, anyway. I went about as far to the right as I could go when I voted for McCain.

I think there are many things we don't yet know about what a Palin presidency would look like. I would need to know that, as well as how well-developed her understanding of all aspects of government has become, before I could support her as potus. Of course, if BO is the only other option, I could not vote for him, even if the Pubs were running the Bride of Chuckie. I do believe he'll be the Dem candidate in 2012, unless by some miracle he does not seek a second term. If I can vote for the Pub ticket (regardless of who is on it), and remain at least reasonably true to myself and my ideals, then I'll do so. If that candidate's political views are too far removed from my own to allow me to support her/him, then I guess I'll join the movement mentioned at The Widdershins, and just say no to voting in 2012. If BO or anyone from the progressive wing of the Dem Party runs, I won't be voting for them.

As for Palin's personal conduct, I like and respect her. She's been subjected to the kind of ridicule and sexism (just as Hillary was), that no candidate for president of this country should have to endure.

-- Edited by freespirit on Sunday 11th of April 2010 01:34:29 AM

__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony



Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 4567
Date:
Permalink  
 

freespirit wrote:

I agree with parts of Collins' assessment, but I think she's wrong about Hillary's not being able to save her campaign because she did not become an "interesting campaigner" soon enough. She won the votes. The Dems had to actually take her votes and give them to Obama in order to award him the nomination. I know it's a small point, but I think it needs to be made. Yes, Hillary was more stiff and did not appear extremely comfortable very early on, but within a brief time, she was smokin'. It was so obvious that she was in her element and enjoying the campaign. She lost because the election had been settled by the DNC, long before it ever started.

As for Palin and Brachman, I heard they were both very charismatic at the RLC. Sarah Palin has a very appealing, folksy demeanor, with which many regular, everyday Americans identify. Obviously, she did and does not deserve the gross sexism and misogyny with which she was treated, beginning in 2008, and continuing to the present. That said, unless she has developed a deeper understanding of some of the issues than she appeared to be in 2008, I would have a hard time supporting her.

If she and Brachman were on a ticket together, as some have suggested, I would have a hard time voting for them unless Brachman becomes less conservative than I believe she has been in the past. Even though it would be great to have an all female ticket elected, I would need to know how those candidates would support women's rights, including whether they would work to undermine reproductive rights.  Palin stated in 2008, that she would have no interest in doing so, despite her own religious beliefs which do not allow abortion.  I respect that.  As for Brachman, I don't know what to expect from her in this regard.

I agree with Optix that the Dems have proven themselves to be no friend to women, and the Pubs rejected the moderate candidacy of McCain. Although I'm not entirely sure any Pub could have beaten Obama - given what we know today about the campaign tricks he pulled. Plus, after Bush, a Pub presidency was destined not to happen, anyway. I went about as far to the right as I could go when I voted for McCain.

I think there are many things we don't yet know about what a Palin presidency would look like. I would need to know that, as well as how well-developed her understanding of all aspects of government has become, before I could support her as potus. Of course, if BO is the only other option, I could not vote for him, even if the Pubs were running the Bride of Chuckie. I do believe he'll be the Dem candidate in 2012, unless by some miracle he does not seek a second term. If I can vote for the Pub ticket (regardless of who is on it), and remain at least reasonably true to myself and my ideals, then I'll do so. If that candidate's political views are too far removed from my own to allow me to support her/him, then I guess I'll join the movement mentioned at The Widdershins, and just say no to voting in 2012. If BO or anyone from the progressive wing of the Dem Party runs, I won't be voting for them.

As for Palin's personal conduct, I like and respect her. She's been subjected to the kind of ridicule and sexism (just as Hillary was), that no candidate for president of this country should have to endure.

-- Edited by freespirit on Sunday 11th of April 2010 01:34:29 AM



freespirit,

I read what Gail Collins said a bit differently.  Gail may have opined at some point (in the past) that Hillary was not as interesting earlier in her campaign.  But she is realizing that it is less important than to have more substance.  I think this is the point that Gail is making.

What is absolutely true is in NH, she found her voice in a way that made her much stronger on the campaign trail. But her solutions were always there.  The Solutions are what set her apart from the rest of the bunch.

Gail Collins is perhaps saying that the not so flashy Hillary Clinton of the early days (that perhaps Gail may not have admired - and I do not recall Gail's posts from that far back) is what we need.

 

I would most certainly not be supporting a ticket of Palin and Bachmann.  But honestly, I have increasingly viewed Palin as highly pro-life. She was interviewed by Chris Wallace where he asked direct question on the topic in which she could have responded with a relatively neutral or balanced or even nuanced response, but no, she was very pro-life in that response.  If she is doing that to curry favors from the conservative and thinks she can then wax eloquent on how she performed as a governor, well, that is no longer going to fly because her tenure as governor was so short.

I also worry that Palin's folksy approach is further projecting women as unprofessional in their communication.  This is far less of a concern than pro-life stance.

A significantly bigger concern is how much she has NOT learned. 



Candy Crawley had a fairly serious segment today on Palin as a potential contender - she interviewed many who went to the SRLC.  Crawley also observed that Palin's appearances and shows are prescripted.  Crawley observed that Palin's resignation from Alaska Gov job has made her target of more funnies from SLC that she did not need.  And, I learned from Crawley that SRLC voted for Romney (#1) and Ron Paul (#2) likely nominees despite Palin being the opening number on their show and Palin did not make direct reference to the NAME of the Governor of Louisiana in her address (a competitive stance).  All told, it may have helped Romney to have not shown up!

Palin has very carefully avoided all interviews from other than FOX News, and all appearances that are unscripted.   All shows she has appeared on including her own show "american stories" are pre-scripted and low risk.

One of the things that I noticed is Palin has still not been challenged on her knowledge of current events. What's worse, she is not demonstrating that she is in-tune with current events except when it involved Pres.Obama where she can target him.  For example, she made no reference to the WV disaster in her appearance. She often appears disconnected from current event, except when she wants to toss a ringer at the President. That is politics of polarized negativism.  She did not name the Louisiana Governor by name when she said there has been a lot of progress in Louisiana - she said 'governor of Louisiana' but did not say Bobby Jindal -- she need not, but a leader does name the person in presence.

[Need to find that clip of Candy Crawley from today. I'll look for it tomorrow. Meanwhile, if any of you find it, please post in this thread. Thanks.]


__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010
Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010

Madam Secretary Blog at ForeignPolicy.com
Project Vote Smart - Stay informed and engaged!
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard