On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:45 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Tom Wolper <twol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Charles Pierce of Esquire expressed my thoughts much better than I could >>> have. >>> >> >> http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/hillary-clinton-documentary-093013 >> > > I do not agree; I think you could have expressed those thoughts much > better than he did. > I also do not agree with those thoughts. > > It is true that Hillary Land reeked of entitlement. And it is also true > that Mark Penn was one of her biggest problems. But I don't think she was > playing not to lose; she was playing to win the general election, thinking > she had to position herself to the center, and in the meantime got > outflanked on her left. The irony is that she is probably further to the > left than Obama is, but she could not and would not take the out on Iraq. > > But more to this point, I don't think there is anything about the "new > politics" of the Obama campaign that suggest the thing to do is to give > full access to an independent film maker who is going to release a > documentary about your *before* the presidential campaign. In the new age, > more than ever, campaigns insist on controlling their own message and > presentation. I don't think you would see Obama, or Marco Rubio, giving > anyone 10 hours of video taped interview that a documentarian can cut and > present anyway they want to. I doubt you will ever see anyone with a > serious chance of getting a major party nomination do anything like that in > the foreseeable future. And Hillary, who already has all the name > recognition she needs, needs that less than almost anyone. > > I think this was a bad idea for CNN and a bad idea for Hillary. >
I wanted to give this some thought before responding. The odd thing about this story is that CNN publicized the documentary before Ferguson had any film shot. My knee-jerk assumption was that Ferguson did his interviews and when CNN announced the doc and the response came from the RNC and others, they decided to dump the idea - and this was after I read Ferguson's HuffPo article. I can't understand why they would announce a documentary before the subject had agreed to participate. So I'd agree with Pierce if there was 10 hours of interview footage in the can and Hillary got cold feet or whatever and moved to shut it down. In that case she'd know what the questions were and she would have some feeling of Ferguson's attitude. But without any of that it makes more sense for her to stay away and ask any people who deal with her regularly to stay away also, and that's without taking a presidential run into account. So I agree that it was a bad idea for CNN and a bad idea for Hillary. I also believe at some point in the near future, possibly the 2016 presidential race, the ability of the candidate and campaign to utterly control the presentation and message will fade away. This won't happen because a campaign doesn't want to control the message, what will happen is that outside information will come in and either not affect the outcome of the race or will turn out to help the candidate. -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
