Clinton, her aids, and recently the Washington Post, have shrugged off the impact of the two upcoming books which paint Senator Clinton in a bad light. Everyone seems to believe that stories featuring Hillary and Bill’s rocky past will have no impact on the upcoming election. I beg to differ.

Aids rejoiced because at none of Clinton’s recent events was she asked about the upcoming books. Does it not bother the campaign handlers then, that despite these successful events, the top news stories concerning Hillary are in regards to the upcoming books and not her issue centered interviews? For now Clinton may be able to stay on message with reporters, but the media isn’t following her lead at press time.

And it’s only going to get worse; the two new books aren’t even out yet. When they are released to the public, “both will be backed by major publicity tours and advertising.” That means more publicity for Hillary’s infamous past.

According to the Post article, strategists from both isles admit that references to the past are no help for Clinton. Voters are looking for inspiration for the future, and the more Hillary seems mired in the past, the worse off her campaign for President.

Plus consider undecided voters. This shrinking segment of the population is often considered the critical votes in Presidential elections, with the country almost equally split in party loyalty. The months leading up to the primaries, and the final election (if Hillary is still in the hunt,) will be full of press references to these books. Even articles on other subjects will throw in a token reference to the “unflattering books,” or the rocky marriage, the affairs, the failure to read all the Iraq reports, or the Clinton control conspiracy theories.  None of these constant references will help Hillary gain yardage with the crucial undecided voter.  

As confident as the Clinton campaign is that these books “don’t have any impact on the race,” at some point bad press has to be, well, bad. Instead of dismissing these claims categorically as irrelevant or preposterous, the Clinton campaign needs to develop a more nuanced strategy to deal with her image.

See Michael Fields’ Blog at www.fieldsforthought.blogspot.com

Be Sociable, Share!