On last Friday’s Bill Moyers Journal, Mr. Moyers interviewed Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. She pointed out that Iowa and New Hampshire offer the candidate very few delegates; that the networks and media build up the two states’ importance through systematic awarding of advantage and disadvantage to candidates. She spoke of the great Presidential ‘08 candidates that have dropped out of the race as a result of the network myth. A review of presidential wins history would have convinced them to stay in. In the same program Bill Moyers interviewed candidates who were not invited to network debates on the basis of their low polling performance. Ron Paul was excluded from the Fox debate in Iowa and included in the ABC debate. Dennis Kucinich was excluded by ABC for the New Hampshire debate.
The people in New Hampshire and Iowa do seem tuned into network myths. If they had examined both Barack Obama’s Illinois State record and his Congressional record as junior senator I believe they would be surprised. He has not been about unifying, change nor about action. He has been about Puddle Avoiding. (see “When the Boys and Girls Gang upon Hill.)” His message of unifying is indeed George W. Bush deja vu. A Vu whose catalyst seems to be Clinton polarisation.
MSNBC’s First Read (“the first place for key political news and analysis”) does the Brand Math for us in today’s “First Thoughts: Primary Day” (January 8, 2008), an analysis based on the consistency of the candidates speeches. Obama and McCain are raised upon the pedestal for having “organic brands”; “unifying change agent” and “straight-shooting, gritty, experienced hand.” Their brands’ strength, we are told, comes from “the other two” — Mitt and Hill’s “well-tested brand efforts,” their constant rebranding efforts over the past six months.
This MSNBC’s “First Read” article argues that neither Mitt or Hill had a brand to start with. The reality is that both candidates have histories as hard workers, unifiers, changers and above all else, success, in their respective roles as Governor of Massachusetts and Senator for New York and political celebrity, wife of Bill Clinton, first lady. They had a brand coming into the race. Their change, nicely put, has not been in their brand, the change has been how they have communicated their stand on the issues.
The Myth Builder’s game rule bend is that Mitt and Hill now have acquired brands and they are changing them through tools. They are not organic. Is this true?
First off, Obama had a huge brand coming into the race, he came in as a larger than life political celebrity. I believe Obama has gone through a series of “change” changes on his picket sign.
McCain seems to have not changed at all. 
The word organic speaks of naturally evolving. By comparison then Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton’s brands are seen as changing artificially through “retooling.” Hillary Clinton didn’t start her campaign with a rationale speech or a brand, her slogan was ““I’m in, and I’m in to win.” (The article inserts their myth “what happens when she is no longer winning.”) In a myth word grab, “transformation” is picked out from the words below as Mitts’ brand.
“Throughout my life, I have pursued innovation and transformation. It has taught me the vital lessons that come only from experience, from failures and successes… Talk is easy; talk is cheap. It is doing that is hard. And it is only in doing that hope and dreams come to life.”–Mittney Romney, February 2007 speech
The article does not discuss how the ABC New Hampshire debate Democratic and Republican candidates sparred the brand for their Giant opponents. Romney was crowned “changing” by McCain and Hill was crowned “status quo” by Edwards.
Lastly, sadly, the article gives us on the East Coast waking up the returns from primary polls that have closed at dawn. Its just like the ABC Facebook questionnaires, validity. I f you show people what others before them have voted pre-vote, there is a great likelihood they’ll vote the same way or won’t vote at all.
