Posted by Jed Lewison on Mon Jan 7, 2008 at 10:07 PM Pacific

This is not what we mean by change

I've seen the debate about the meaning of Hillary's "moment" today at that diner in Portsmouth.

There's nothing to debate. It was political theater, and fine political theater at that.

I don't mean that as a criticism: for the first time in a long time, Hillary Clinton proved to electronic journalists that she could put on as good a show as Barack Obama, and they ate it up.

I used to put together these kinds of media events for a living -- I've got a pretty good feel for what they look like and how they work. This wasn't some informal meet and greet with undecided voters. It was a staged event, organized for the mass media. It was 100% made-for-TV.

Look at this picture of the event:

I'd be stunned if there were more undecided voters in that room as there were journalists, yet most consumers of the mass media have no idea that this was a staged event. Why? Almost all of the images from the event were tight shots of Hillary, designed to make the event look as "real" as possible.

To the extent that I'm being critical of anything, the media is the target of my barbs. I'm certainly not being critical of Hillary -- quite the contrary. She and her team did an excellent job of exploiting mass media's weakness. This is a textbook example of earned media.

Hillary didn't come unglued. She was in control -- of everything.

Within seconds of her marginally close bout with tears (let's be honest, it wasn't that close), she had delivered a scathing attack on Barack Obama and appropriated one of John Edwards signature refrains from the debate on Saturday night ("this is personal to me").

Hillary's savvy act of political theater dominated the media today. It wasn't just the corporate MSM -- it was blogs, even this diary.

Today, she was the center of the Democratic political universe, back where she wants to be after several days in the shadow of Barack Obama.

With Hillary back in the middle, Monday was the first political newscycle that Obama has lost since Iowa. He didn't lose it by making a mistake, and he certainly didn't lose it by doing anything wrong.

Obama lost it because Hillary Clinton stole the spotlight. Everything revolved around her. She was the issue. She was the center of attention, and it was on her terms.

At the very least, she denied oxygen to Barack Obama. (Edwards has already been so desperately starved for air that there wasn't anything that she could have done to further exclude Edwards from the media's frame.) At the very best, she may have picked up a couple of undecided voters, most likely female.

Although I suspect she'll get a slight boost from the event, her move won't change the results tomorrow by much.

Even though it's all but certain she will lose tomorrow, Hillary's "moment" will form a part of the "comeback" narrative she hopes to tell. Hillary's message will be that she's going to continue the campaign because of her personal commitment to America. Her "comeback" speech will mirror the words she delivered after her "near tears," in some cases, word for word. She will use her 'moment' to symbolize her "low spot" and unless Edwards somehow sneaks past her into second place, which is not very likely, the media will buy it.

Those of us who support John Edwards or Barack Obama are probably not going to be convinced by her argument, but her supporters certainly will.

The media won't complain that she's continuing her campaign because she demonstrated once again that she can put on at least as good a show for the evening news as Barack Obama.

Today, Hillary Clinton's campaign changed gears. I don't know if it's too little too late, but I do think it was definitely smart and should remind every Democrat that this ballgame isn't over yet. The fight continues, and after Tuesday, it's going to be a new round and a new dynamic.

As much as I was impressed by Hillary's media savvy, I was depressed and angered by the utter vapidity of our system.

This evening, ABC News was my main news source. Here's my weak imitation of Atrios:

Shorter ABC News: Hillary was emotional, but will voter's respond? Obama wants politics of addition. Romney thinks he'll lose to McCain. Iran semi-attacked the a U.S. Navy vessel, which showed great restraint by not starting a war.

The only story that resembled anything close to something with true meaning was the one about Iran, but given that it was reported from deep inside the Pentagon by Jonathan Karl, I don't trust a damn word I heard.

John Edwards was once again marginalized from the broadcast, even though national polling shows that he's gotten almost as big an Iowa bounce as has Obama (+5 for Edwards, +6 for Obama).

ABC gave Edwards a few moments to comment on Hillary's media event, clearly hoping to create a little controversy to boost their ratings.

An innocent explanation is that they've just decided that nobody in a America gives a hoot about the stuff that John Edwards is trying to talk about.

Well, if that's what they're thinking, then they're wrong.

I'll end this diary with a little "candidate video" I just put together. These are the kinds of issues we need to be talking about. This is the reason why it's worth keeping up the fight.

This is not what we mean by change

I've seen the debate about the meaning of Hillary's "moment" today at that diner in Portsmouth.

There's nothing to debate. It was political theater, and fine political theater at that.

I don't mean that as a criticism: for the first time in a long time, Hillary Clinton proved to electronic journalists that she could put on as good a show as Barack Obama, and they ate it up.

I used to put together these kinds of media events for a living -- I've got a pretty good feel for what they look like and how they work. This wasn't some informal meet and greet with undecided voters. It was a staged event, organized for the mass media. It was 100% made-for-TV.

Look at this picture of the event:

I'd be stunned if there were more undecided voters in that room as there were journalists, yet most consumers of the mass media have no idea that this was a staged event. Why? Almost all of the images from the event were tight shots of Hillary, designed to make the event look as "real" as possible.

To the extent that I'm being critical of anything, the media is the target of my barbs. I'm certainly not being critical of Hillary -- quite the contrary. She and her team did an excellent job of exploiting mass media's weakness. This is a textbook example of earned media.

Hillary didn't come unglued. She was in control -- of everything.

Within seconds of her marginally close bout with tears (let's be honest, it wasn't that close), she had delivered a scathing attack on Barack Obama and appropriated one of John Edwards signature refrains from the debate on Saturday night ("this is personal to me").

Hillary's savvy act of political theater dominated the media today. It wasn't just the corporate MSM -- it was blogs, even this diary.

Today, she was the center of the Democratic political universe, back where she wants to be after several days in the shadow of Barack Obama.

With Hillary back in the middle, Monday was the first political newscycle that Obama has lost since Iowa. He didn't lose it by making a mistake, and he certainly didn't lose it by doing anything wrong.

Obama lost it because Hillary Clinton stole the spotlight. Everything revolved around her. She was the issue. She was the center of attention, and it was on her terms.

At the very least, she denied oxygen to Barack Obama. (Edwards has already been so desperately starved for air that there wasn't anything that she could have done to further exclude Edwards from the media's frame.) At the very best, she may have picked up a couple of undecided voters, most likely female.

Although I suspect she'll get a slight boost from the event, her move won't change the results tomorrow by much.

Even though it's all but certain she will lose tomorrow, Hillary's "moment" will form a part of the "comeback" narrative she hopes to tell. Hillary's message will be that she's going to continue the campaign because of her personal commitment to America. Her "comeback" speech will mirror the words she delivered after her "near tears," in some cases, word for word. She will use her 'moment' to symbolize her "low spot" and unless Edwards somehow sneaks past her into second place, which is not very likely, the media will buy it.

Those of us who support John Edwards or Barack Obama are probably not going to be convinced by her argument, but her supporters certainly will.

The media won't complain that she's continuing her campaign because she demonstrated once again that she can put on at least as good a show for the evening news as Barack Obama.

Today, Hillary Clinton's campaign changed gears. I don't know if it's too little too late, but I do think it was definitely smart and should remind every Democrat that this ballgame isn't over yet. The fight continues, and after Tuesday, it's going to be a new round and a new dynamic.

As much as I was impressed by Hillary's media savvy, I was depressed and angered by the utter vapidity of our system.

This evening, ABC News was my main news source. Here's my weak imitation of Atrios:

Shorter ABC News: Hillary was emotional, but will voter's respond? Obama wants politics of addition. Romney thinks he'll lose to McCain. Iran semi-attacked the a U.S. Navy vessel, which showed great restraint by not starting a war.

The only story that resembled anything close to something with true meaning was the one about Iran, but given that it was reported from deep inside the Pentagon by Jonathan Karl, I don't trust a damn word I heard.

John Edwards was once again marginalized from the broadcast, even though national polling shows that he's gotten almost as big an Iowa bounce as has Obama (+5 for Edwards, +6 for Obama).

ABC gave Edwards a few moments to comment on Hillary's media event, clearly hoping to create a little controversy to boost their ratings.

An innocent explanation is that they've just decided that nobody in a America gives a hoot about the stuff that John Edwards is trying to talk about.

Well, if that's what they're thinking, then they're wrong.

I'll end this diary with a little "candidate video" I just put together. These are the kinds of issues we need to be talking about. This is the reason why it's worth keeping up the fight.

The Jed Report Home Page

© Jed Lewison