Whither Bill?

How Deliberate Was The Exclusion of Bill Clinton From the Campaign Album?

On Monday, June 16, Hillary’s web-bots (ie paid wind-down skeleton staff) made sure to send out what might be one of the last missives that subscribers to her campaign updates will recieve. A select group of campaign trail photos , no doubt just 22 of millions of photographs captured on an equal number of various devices, was put together in a digital family-styled album.

It’s not necessarily odd that the campaign did this - especially in a race as historically close and historically drawn out as the one that we have been witness to. Having subscribed to all the campaigns and candidates updates (even Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson, two of the sloppier examples of using the AlGorenet in a presidential run), it’s clear that all campaign staffers were aware of the gravity of utilizing the medium. When Ron Paul smashed fundraising records (oddly, in inverse proportion to his share of the vote - almost), the un-winnowed candidates stepped up their game. Where Dennis Kucinich was sure to let people know about the specifics of his platform very early in his campaign (whether during CNN “debates” or gutsy appearances on Fox News), Hillary’s last five major primary dates saw stage choreographers place banners so prominently that major network camera’s couldn’t fail to pick them up. Even audience members shouted in unison as she rolled out the URL and asked for feedback (preferably in the form of money).

It makes sense, particularly in a nomination cycle that smashed spending records. The internet is a relatively cheap way to reach hundreds of millions and allows organizers to expand databases, expedite information- sharing in the 60 second news cycle, and let attentive netroots activists and motivated supporters know what’s needed, where, when, and how much.

With this wordy overview of what you already knew reiterated, it’s essential to understand that at this stage of the game the actions and decisions of campaign e-staffers is probably more deliberate than we can imagine. So while Hillary’s campaign ‘photo album’ appears to be a warm and fuzzy reachout to those who feel close to her campaign effort in more ways than one might understand, one might be forgiven in wondering why absolutely any images of her husband, former President Bill Clinton (um,duh) were not included.

This isn’t anything like MSNBC cropping out photos of certain candidates, or other networks among them failing to point the news factor of post debate polling when it suits their political agendas.

Basic points about the internet as a political marketing tool made (very basic points indeed), one can’t help wonder if this action on the HRC campaign is an extension of her final election night non-concession speech.

Many of us have already heard the endless theorizing about the possible damage that Bill Clinton may have perpetuated, whether it be racism or sexism, or whether a very tired guy with a heart condition snapped in a Harry S. Truman-like fashion at criticisms of a loved one.

Perhaps Hillary wants to ensure this campaign was truly all her own - with a potential legacy that she can share with her daughter (who appears in a number of these photographs) as well as the daughters of millions of Americans.

But on this topic, one New York-based Hillary supporter quipped,”Boy, she must be really pissed off at him.”

It’s also a fair accusation to ask if writing this isn’t reading more into it than is there.

Without being in the mind of the person(s) involved, it’s mere hypothesis - which admittedly becomes something akin to a game to pass the time on a long journey. Don’t feel any guilt about it though - it’s what makes up a majority of what actually passes for “news content” and whether it’s Jack Cafferty or Sean Hannity soliciting it, they sure can fill up the space between commercial breaks with this stuff.

On the other hand, if history is being made, wouldn’t one want the whole family to be included?

www.globalpundit.org