|
Edited on Tue Oct-30-07 09:16 PM by omega minimo
Now look.
When you’re the nominee's communications director, speaking to a national progressive radio audience, "Now look --" may not be the best way to begin the answers you give to the questions the host asks.
That is, when you choose to answer the question, rather than sidestep it and deliver your script instead.
Don’t you know people hate that?
Oh, I’m sorry, you needed to get out today’s talking point: “Obama and Edwards ATTACKED Hillary and abandoned the ‘Politics of Hope’ and people won’t like that.”
Don’t you know people can spot that avoidance?
Especially when the talking point shows up in the same day's newspaper as a sidebar that “Obama and Edwards ATTACKED Hillary” when what they actually did was challenge her on issues that people care about. How convenient that this spin about an “attack” avoids the issues entirely and blames the other campaigns for playing dirty politics.
Don’t you know that’s dirty politics? That people hate that? That people can SPOT that?
And the radio host returned to the question you avoided and the issue you avoided and he did so repeatedly and quite directly because it is THE issue that concerns many voters about Hillary.
The way another candidate put it was in regards to campaign funding – where her money is coming from.
The way many voters put it is that she is the corporate candidate – and the repetition of the communication director’s talking point in the generic print media today reinforces the impression.
Hillary Clinton is viewed by many as the candidate that Republican Lite and Democratic Elite and global corporations and generic media can all agree on to proceed with business as usual.
The way the radio host put it to try to get an answer was plain blunt.
What was Howard Wolfson’s eventual and reluctant answer?
"… if some of her money comes from somewhere that _____ may not appreciate or _____ may not appreciate or you may not appreciate .............."
… and the non-answer trailed off.
“May not appreciate?”
What people don’t appreciate, Mr. Communications Controller, is that you (repeatedly) refuse to answer the question, you disregard the relevance of the question, you denigrate the voters and dismiss their concerns as trivial. The only way that Clinton’s campaign could address the issue was come out prepared and scripted to portray the questions as an “attack” – and try to deflect.
All of this reinforces the impression that you think Hillary’s nomination is inevitable, which is what people are being told by the generic media -- the same corporate media that printed the “attack” claim today; the same media and corporations that perpetuate and profit from “business as usual.”
Which reinforces the notion that Ms. Clinton IS the corporatist candidate.
With more respect than you give the voters, Mr. Wolfson – and without the “Now look” “we’ve got it in the bag” arrogant attitude you convey, the voters you are dismissing would like you to know:
You don’t have it in the bag.
You can’t take our votes for granted.
And if you’re right and we’re wrong and the message you’re sending – intentionally or not – is that the Powers That Be have anointed Hillary to carry on Big Business As Usual …
You may not appreciate the outcome when millions more people don’t bother to vote, at all.
edit: ANOINTED. (or would that be "appointed"?)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
