Home > Commentary > Ed MartinTVBuzz.com > Why Hillary Won in New Hampshire

Why Hillary Won in New Hampshire

Published: January 10, 2008 at 02:06 PM GMT
Last Updated: January 10, 2008 at 02:06 PM GMT

By Ed Martin

I have listened to dozens of talking heads ramble on and on about Hillary Clinton's "surprise" win in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, and amid all the second-day quarterbacking and hindsight reflections and furious backpedaling not one of them has stated the obvious. If Clinton was ever really lagging perilously behind Barack Obama in the Granite State race, she came roaring back to the forefront and ultimately to victory because of the power of "old" media -- that is, television and newspapers.

It is clear that the televised footage of Clinton's soft-spoken response to a question asked at a small gathering in a Portsmouth, New Hampshire, coffee shop propelled her to victory. Her uncharacteristic display of heartfelt emotion, which likely humanized her even in the eyes of her harshest detractors, was endlessly replayed on broadcast and cable television Monday night and all day Tuesday while New Hampshire voters made their decisions and went to the polls. Full accounts of it ran in every newspaper that day, too.

We have since been told that Clinton won the primary on the strength of adult women voters. I would argue that the majority of those women saw the profound footage on television, rather than on YouTube, and read about it in their local papers rather than in blogs!

"How do you do it," a woman named Marianne Pernold-Young had asked Clinton in Portsmouth, referring to her ability to campaign as tirelessly as she does. "How do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?"

Clinton became teary eyed and her voice quietly cracked as she spoke the words we have since heard dozens of times over: "It's not easy. It's not easy. I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I had so many opportunities in this country. I just don't want to see us fall backwards. This is very personal for me. It's not just politics. It's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it."

BTW, it is interesting to me that the media has stated over and over again that Clinton "cried" while giving her answer. She didn't cry. She misted, in part from obvious exhaustion. There is a difference. What does this say about accuracy in reporting and analysis?

In hindsight, that one clip, repeated free of charge on television a thousand times over, probably did more for her than her campaign ads, which like those of her Democratic opponents and the Republican contenders clogged every commercial pod on New Hampshire television for days. I find it hard to believe that these regional barrages of commercials for candidates do much good. After you have seen them once or twice they have no impact at all. In fact, they become annoying. I must have seen Mitt Romney's attack ad against John McCain at least 20 times during my recent stay in New Hampshire and by the fourth or fifth repeat they totally turned me off to the guy. Romney, not McCain.

As much as I believe that Hillary's win over Obama is also a win for television and newspapers over new media, I also think it speaks to one of the more annoying issues currently confronting both: The growing tendency by professional journalists and pompous pundits to refer to each other and to the blogosphere for support in their reporting. What sorry business it was on Monday and Tuesday to hear one "expert" after another note that "the blogosphere is buzzing" about Obama's meteoric rise and Clinton's dramatic decline on every television outlet that offers news. As I noted in my story about Obama on Tuesday (posted many hours before the primary results were known), when I was in New Hampshire I saw no evidence of the mounting problems for Clinton that the national media was honking about. But, hey -- if media mavens and bloggers alike were expounding about it, it must be so, no?

No. Not necessarily.

Clearly, the people of New Hampshire were paying more attention to the candidates and to each other than to pundits, journalists and bloggers. They formed their own conclusions based on their own direct experiences and observations. Isn't that what media professionals are supposed to do, too?

To communicate with or to be contacted by the executives and/or companies mentioned in this column, link to JackMyers Connection Hotline.

Post a Comment

Reader Comments(0)