"Okay... well, she failed in both."
How can you say that?
CLEARLY she received *massive* free media. (So, that means she succeeded at my 'point A'... got free media, used free media.)
Now my second point, 'B', (Have her message influence public opinion) we can argue about.
But there is little denying of the fact that THEN (when she started...) the public was FOR the War in Iraq... while NOW large majorities are AGAINST the war in Iraq.
Whether that is a total coincidence (& she had no influence on the public in any direction), or not, still there is no disputing the fact that the public's opinions have shifted to oppose the involvement in Iraq.
So, 'point B' may be argued (she did or did not have any kind of impact on public opinion), but point A) --- the fact that she received (finally) large amounts of free media coverage seems beyond dispute.
Also so the fact that public opinion has shifted more in the direction of her viewpoints. (After all, in the beginning of her quixotic campaign, the coverage she received was 99% or so highly negative, and the public supported the occupation in Iraq by large majorities. BOTH of those have changed with the passage of time.) |
