Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 6th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Playing dirty could cost candidates the greatest prize of all



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 08 March 2008
SOME say it is unfair to have quoted the member of Barack Obama's campaign team who blurted out "Hillary Clinton is a monster" to a Scotsman journalist and immediately claimed it as off the record as well as off the cuff. But don't believe that anyone who is anywhere near a presidential hopeful at this stage in the game ever says anything that isn't carefully scripted. Even the denial that it was ever said will have been worked on by a team of advisers before the off-the-cuff
Call me cynical, but planting seeds of doubt in the minds of the electorate then denying that such seeds reflect the views of the candidate is an age-old trick. Teams of people have based their careers on deciding who is going to make a so-called "ga
ffe" and at what stage of the campaign, who will deny it and how vociferously.

There is a stage in any election where things can start to get a bit nasty, or interesting, depending on your viewpoint, on both sides. Hillary Clinton's latest television campaign advert seems to suggest that Barack Obama isn't capable of protecting America's sleeping children. The ad, and if you haven't caught it it's currently showing on YouTube alongside a thousand different parodies, suggests that if a crisis call came in the middle of the night to the Oval Office, Hillary is the only one with the experience to deal with it. The pictures of sleeping children over the insistent soundtrack of a ringing telephone, a thunderous musical score and the voiceover with the gravitas and underlying menace of Orson Welles can't help but leave the impression that Barack Obama would let your children be taken by evil child-snatchers in the night. It could be made more frightening if they used the Jaws music, but only just.

At no point does it actually say that Barack is the babysitter from hell, nor do the pictures expressly suggest it, but by carefully manipulating the feel of horror films and every parents' worst nightmare, that is the impression we are left with. The pitch has to be just right for this kind of suggestion to work. The best examples tap into what the electorate already suspect about a candidate, and it must only be a suggestion – if it comes in ladlefuls it can have the reverse effect.

Hillary Clinton being called a monster seems to have trod the line successfully, reinforcing a commonly held idea. Reaction from America on The Scotsman website is along the lines of "Tell us something we didn't know", and the revelation that she is considered brutally ambitious is unlikely to bring much surprise to those who would or wouldn't have voted for her anyway. The "3am While Your Children are Sleeping" advert seems to have landed a punch on Barack Obama's campaign, judging by the shot in the arm Hillary got from voters on Tuesday.

Just as you need to be cynical about such tactics, they do make the spectacle more interesting, especially as it is a neck-and-neck fight for the Democratic nomination. If the two candidates sink to mudslinging, however sophisticated and subtle, they may wound the eventual victor so severely that he or she doesn't have the strength to take on the match-fit and rested John McCain. Most of Europe doesn't want to see a Republican in the White House for another term, but despite the millions paid to the masters of spin who manage the news, only a tiny margin of US citizens ever change the way they vote.

Which means it shouldn't take that much mud to stick to either Hillary or Obama in this semi-final to land a fatal blow for the Democrats in the final.





The full article contains 639 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Byron Trent,

Albuquerque NM, USA 08/03/2008 04:27:01
I had hoped to find in K. McLuckie's essay or somewhere in The Scotsman an explanation, a rationale
for today's intervention-by-press in our political
process. Instead I find absence, or in Ms. McL.'s
piece a pale abstinence from involvement. How sad!
Sad that your newspaper takes no responsibility yet
relishes dabbling in our politics, sad that a confidence as reported by the author of the article
even writes that S. Power stated -off the record-.
All this convinces me is that The Scotsman and perhaps
many of its subscribers are enjoying a spectacle
from America but without genuine interest and that,
politically speaking, you have no life of your own.
Please Scotsman, the paper and the citizens, stay
out of our political life. It is difficult--and
important--enough without your careless (and mercantile) meddling.
2

Why Are 400,000 Leaving The UK Each Year ?,

08/03/2008 11:21:03
Personally, I think the Scotsman was wrong to intervene. The journalist Gerri Peev came off badly, and left the Scotsman with the air of some dishonour.

If this article by Kirsty McLuckie has any gravitas, then it would appear that the Scotsman newspaper has been cleverly manipulated and has been naive.

However, fair play to Kirsty McLuckie, as she has written a thoughtful and thought provoking article.

Pity their weren't more like her at the Scotsman newspaper. But as I understand it there have been and are still many P45's to be given out like smarties, so morale amongst the journalists must be a little compromised, and perhaps that has been reflected in the quality in some small way?

Note to Editor: Please give Kirst McLuckie a raise, or if she is freelance put her on staff. As for Ms Peev, well hopefully she is freelance and you can discreetly let he go back to the New Statesman !
3

FrancesP,

08/03/2008 15:53:51
#1. "I had hoped to find in K. McLuckie's essay or somewhere in The Scotsman an explanation, a rationale
for today's intervention-by-press in our political
process" Firstly, the rationale has been explained about half-a-dozen times. You might not agree with it (although personally I think it's fairly unanswerable) but you can hardly pretend it's not there. Secondly, what exactly does 'intervention-by-press' mean? Does it not in this case mean 'accurate reporting of facts'? What exactly is the media's constructive role in the political process if it isn't that?

"...politically speaking, you have no life of your own" Typical ignorant, condescending American comment about a foreign country. A new parliament that was founded just nine years ago, the first nationalist government in our history elected just ten months ago, a minority government that has to fight to get every individual piece of legislation through parliament, and one that wants to hold a referendum on independence from the UK in 2010. No, quite clearly we have no political life of our own.

By the way, in spite of all I've said, I still hope Obama wins (I presume he's the candidate you're supporting). Or does even that comment represent an outrageous 'intervention' by a foreigner?
4

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta 09/03/2008 23:24:37

Why Are 400,000 Leaving The UK Each Year ?,
08/03/2008 11:21:03
Personally, I think the Scotsman was wrong to intervene. The journalist Gerri Peev came off badly, and left the Scotsman with the air of some dishonour.
-------------------------------------------
Hey Dude ,
What the hell does dishonor mean ???

No body gets off this planet alive ..WE all die dude.
So what's with ur disonor crap,!!!

GC

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Who would make the best Democratic challenger for President?
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.