Wednesday, August 07, 2013

TOO GOOD FOR MAUREEN DOWD TO CHECK

Maureen Dowd agrees with Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus that the forthcoming Hillary Clinton films on NBC and CNN are bad things. Dowd agrees because she also hates Hillary she's sincerely concerned about the influence these films might have on the 2016 election. To support her case, she marshals her evidence:
You need look no further than "The Queen" -- Helen Mirren's Oscar-winning turn as Queen Elizabeth -- to see how reputations can be burnished. After Princess Diana's death in 1997, the royals were seen as bloodless ice cubes, and there were questions about the viability of the monarchy. But when the sympathetic movie came out in 2006, the queen's popularity soared.
Did it? Really? Here are poll results on the queen over the years, from Ipsos-MORI (click to enlarge):





Notice when approval of the queen soared from 71% to 82%: in 2002 -- four years before The Queen was released. (2002 was the year the queen's Golden Jubilee was celebrated.) Yes, her popularity went up in 2006, the year of The Queen's release -- but note that that poll was taken in April 2006. The Queen was released (in the U.S. and U.K.) in September 2006.

Way to check facts, MoDo.

Dowd also tells us that "Julianne Moore's Emmy-winning performance in 'Game Change' solidified Sarah Palin's reputation as an emotionally erratic dunce." Um, actually, that reputation was established sometime during the 2008 campaign, and was pretty much solidified long before the 2012 release of Game Change. If you go to Polling Report, you'll see the collected polling on Palin. Thirteen polls were conducted on her favorability in 2011 -- the year before Game Change was first aired. In every single one of those polls, Palin's unfavorability exceeded 50%, while her favorability was in the 30s or even the 20s. There were five polls in 2011 asking whether Palin should run for president, or was qualified to do so. In each of those polls, the no responses exceeded 60%. (In one of the polls, 74% said she shouldn't run for president -- and that poll was from Fox.)

Dowd thinks we're mesmerized by the media, and she has a point, but let's not forget that for more than twenty years we've been able to turn on our TVs and see the actual Hillary Clinton. We're really not going to be swayed by a TV movie about someone who is already, in effect, a TV star. (And please note that the queen -- who's been on TV a lot lately, what with the Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee last year, and the baby this year -- is even more popular now than she was in 2006, according to Ipsos-MORI. I don't think we can ascribe that to a seven-year-old movie. Helen Mirren's a hell of an actress, but she's not that good.)

The best reason to oppose the Hillary films is the possibility that they'll set a precedent. Is Fox going to respond by airing a docudrama about Chris Christie's noble fight against classrooms run by union thugs, interspersed with poignant scenes of his Rocky Balboa-esque love for Mary Pat?

12 comments:

Victor said...

In the gossip biz that MoDo's in, you don't need to fact-check things.

You spew them out there, and see what sticks.

And she's pretty good at spewing things out there.

Rick Massimo said...

"Is Fox going to respond by airing a docudrama about Chris Christie's noble fight against classrooms run by union thugs, interspersed with poignant scenes of his Rocky Balboa-esque love for Mary Pat?"

You say that as if they weren't going to anyway.

aimai said...

Yes. I agree with Rick Massimo, the right wing doesn't operate on precedent, they operate on sheer gall. They will attack any production company that sponsors anything to do with the future Democratic candidate, and they will turn right around and fund a hagiography of their own candidates and try to push it out into the mainstream without a trace of shame. Thats just the way they do business.

I highly recommend "The Hunting of the President" for a look at just how long range the right wing's plans of attack are on people who show the slightest sign of interest in the presidency. And I'd like to point out that videos accusing Clinton of murder and drug running were circulating in Arkansas and right wing churches for quite a while during the run up to his first presidential campaign, and afterwards.

duffandnonsense said...

"let's not forget that for more than twenty years we've been able to turn on our TVs and see the actual Hillary Clinton."

Indeed! Quite so! 'Nuff said, I feel!

Incidentally, I'm not sure where but I asked recently exactly what 'HillBilly' had ever actually achieved? Answer came there none.

David Duff

Aunt Snow said...

If anything, Moore performance did something I would not have thought possible - made Palin a wee bit more of a sympathetic character.

Dowd is an idiot.

ed waldo said...

This isn't meant as a plug, but it's the only way I could do it.

Dowd has a long history of playing fast and loose with the facts, sometimes criminally so, as in her TIME magazine cover story on Herpes in the 80s. Love your blog, NMMNG.

http://hisvorpal.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/god-swill-40-days-later/

duffandnonsense said...

Oh, I see, she hasn't actually achieved anything much, then!

David Duff

Steve M. said...

We're just ignoring you, Duff.

duffandnonsense said...

Oh, go on, Steve, try, just one notable achievement will do - and putting up with the 'Old Rutter' does not count!

Steve M. said...

She was a senator when your party controlled the whole government. She was first lady and secretary of state when your party was shutting down the government, or all but shutting it down. Hard to get much done in a two-party system when one party grinds the entire political process to a halt every time it doesn't get its way.

duffandnonsense said...

Er, not *my* party, Steve!

"Hard to get much done in a two-party system" - quite so, damned democracy! A one party state is so much more efficient provided, of course, that is *your* party!

As for 'HillBilly', forgive me if I remain less than overwhelmed. Getting elected to anything as an ex-First Lady is hardly difficult, particularly if you are a Democrat standing in New York. Still, that is all academic, we will only know her true worth if and when she wins the presidency. It's always the job (or the 'jarb', as you call it 'over there') which finds them out - as today's incumbent has been found out.

By the way, why have you added those 'angry' logos to your comments, there's absolutely no need for anger in this conversation, we're both grown-ups, aren't we?

ae3f007e-0126-11e3-9cdd-000bcdcb5194 said...

AMERICA LOVER:

The guy that started this blog needs to WAKE UP! He has his head stuck up somewhere that usually "STINKS"!! If loving my country and thinking that things are in a mess makes me "crazy" then so be it! I have been to several Tea Party gatherings and all I saw was God and America loving people!

If you think "sharing the wealth" and giving hand outs to people who sit on their A--"s while I work and save for my and my family's future makes me CRAZY then you need to take a good look in YOUR MIRROR!!! Your head is screwed on backwards! Go ahead, tell us how YOU SHARE YOUR WEALTH BIG BOY!!!

I AM AFRAID OF OUR GOVERNMENT! THIS HAS NEVER BEEN THE CASE IN YEARS PAST! MY GUY DID NOT ALWAY'S WIN AND I ACCEPTED IT, BUT THIS IS A WHOLE NEW BALL GAME!!! OUR COUNRTY IS IN BIG TROUBLE AND I AM INDEED WORRIED! I "YOU" THINK ALL IS FINE AND DANDY THEN YOU ARE IN LA LA LAND!!!

GOD PLEASE HELP US AND BLESS THIS "ONCE" GREAT COUNTRY AGAIN!!