Yesterday I received a direct mail piece from Hillary’s campaign. It was wonderfully designed and had the headline: “Hillary Clinton, Ready to Lead, Ready to Win.”
Then in a nice little circle on the lower right it listed Hillary’s recent newspaper endorsements: The Keene Sentinel, Foster’s Daily Democrat, Concord Monitor.
Knowing that such quality publications think Hillary would be a good president, made me feel good, of course. But the good feelings vanished with a sobering realization: people who are likely to vote for Barack Obama don’t read newspapers. In fact, I suspect they don’t read anything.
They watch TV. They watch Oprah. They get their news on Comedy Central. They are in a closed Facebook, MySpace loop in which nothing else intrudes.
So, forget the eloquent editorials about Obama’s empty platitudes or Hillary’s tested, balanced approach to leadership. The people who most need to get those messages are literally in a media cocoon, isolated from anything that might awaken them from their sleeping fantasies.
As far as print media is concern, Obama’s people are The Untouchables.
More. . .
For those of you do like print media, this Advertising Age review of Obama and why he is considered an “acceptable black” for racists raises interesting questions about Obama himself.
Drudge Dreams: Is Hillary quitting the race?
8 responses so far ↓
Jack // January 7, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Actually polls show that Obama supporters are generally more educated than Clinton supporters. Generally Clinton is treated with skepticism with the New York Times crowd. Not saying it matters but since you brought it up…
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/polling_on_the_dark_side_of_th.php
Rake Morgan // January 7, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Sorry, Jack, but that data actually proves my point, which is that Obama people don’t read newspapers.
Anyone familiar with media usage and demographics knows that older populations tend to have a higher percentage of print media users than do younger groups. As shown in the data you presented, Hillary’s demos skews towards an older population. Obama’s younger demos would tend to support my contention that as a group they don’t read newspapers and rely more on electronic and alternative media.
If you need additional information on the relationship between age and print media usage, might I suggest Editor & Publisher, Magazine Publishers Assoc., or Veronis Suhler Stevenson Consulting.
Thanks for the stats.
Jack // January 8, 2008 at 8:39 am
It’s just incredible that you would suggest that the Oprah crowd is a Obama demographic when it was actually Clinton’s target audience.
One of the criticisms I often heard about Obama when I worked at a state democratic party recently was that his supporters were “delusional New York Times idealists.” That is where Obama got most of his initial backing. It is only recently that the “oprah watchers” jumped on the bandwagon.
Rake Morgan // January 8, 2008 at 10:17 am
So, you want to change the subject? You’ve avoided the facts I presented about media usage and age, but that’s OK.
To suggest that the Oprah ploy was not an attempt to lure black female voters to Obama is also naive. And if you don’t think college students are not in their dorms watching the Queen of Daytime, you haven’t seen the audience figures for that show, either.
Robin // January 12, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Nice to know that Obama supporters are being labeled as nonreaders. That is the kind of inflammatory rhetoric I would expect from Sen. Clinton’s “right wing conspiracy”.
Since my candidate, Sen. Biden, is out of the race, I am now looking carefully at both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama.
Remarks such as yours, from someone who is supposed to know Sen. Clinton, do nothing to enhance her standing, in my opinion.
By the way, the people I know who are supporting Sen. Obama are well educated and well traveled. They read several newspapers, as does my family, and follow national events closely, as do we.
Rake Morgan // January 12, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I’m glad you can read, Robin.
For more “inflammatory rhetoric” from someone who supports Hillary, you might also enjoy my posting about Biden. It might explain why he has left the race.
– Rake
Robin // January 13, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Jake, you need to let Sen. Clinton know that her followers don’t stoop to getting any of their information from inferior sources like TV. She was on Meet the Press today; did she miss the memo?
Oh no, wait, she was trying to reach those undecided voters, the ones who get their news from a variety of media, including her Web site, TV, radio and print.
If I were on Sen. Clinton’s staff, I would tell you that the best thing you could do to help her would be to shut down your site. It’s a disservice to her campaign.
Or is that your real intent?
Rake Morgan // January 14, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Hi, Robin. This is Rake. Rake Morgan.
Thanks for stopping by again. I think you have the wrong idea about the purpose of my blog. It does not exist as a surrogate for Hillary Clinton or her supporters. It exists for me to express my opinions — many of which are obviously upsetting to you.
My advice is that if you really want to know what Hillary thinks, you should go to her web site and/or read her stories in the news.
If you would like to know about my views on Hillary and other matters, you are welcome to keep visiting.
And I hope you have had a chance to read my article about your favorite ex-candidate, Joe Biden. It’s called “Groceries or Joe Biden? Easy Choice!”
– Rake
Leave a Comment