Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter
    Blog powered by Typepad

    my first blogs

    « Jhally Good | Main | Annals of Communications: Spitzer "Hoisted on His Own Petard" »

    March 09, 2008

    Comments

    Brian Anderson

    I disagree entirely. Ok, so Clinton's playing rough; she's expected to. It's politics, she's lost a couple of rounds and so has resorted to some questionable and definitely off balance tactics. Her recent action illustrates her thinking, or present strategy, and contributes to an understanding of her future behavior.

    If this were a sales competition, she's given your guy plenty of ammunition that he could easily turn around by merely changing the rules of engagement, or game board, if you will. In sales, rival vendors always try to force the other party to play their game - and lose at it - because the whole premise is based on their adversary's weaknesses.

    All that Mr. Obama has to do is reflect back how groundless these charges are with proof statements that demonstrate his adroitness and political acumen, then show that his rival's form of attack, projected into the future, actually displays the party in a poor light - and question her very form of 'debate.'

    This is his opportunity to shine; a time for his goal line defense to hold fast; for his anchor leg sprinter to snatch the baton, make up lost ground, and charge to victory - but does he have it in him?

    Your sentiments are understandable; Obama's your choice. However, your 'scarcity' argument is weak ("campaign to cripple Obama!" (C'mon!). The super-delegates now can review the situation (attack and counterattack strategies) from a dispassionate perspective, then make their decisions. As always, it will be interesting.

    Ted Shelton

    Brian - Well, I agree with you on at least one point that you make "her recent action illustrates her thinking... and contributes to an understanding of her future behavior."

    Yep, that is what I am the MOST worried about. In a country and world that desperately needs a message of hope, reconciliation, and leadership that doesn't allow differences in opinion to get in the way of working together, Hillary Clinton is exactly the wrong person.

    I don't want to send someone to the White House as our President who can't even congratulate her opponent on the day after winning a primary. We don't need the old democratic machine boss. Nastiness and brutality is just stupid. Even McCain is coming across as nicer than Hillary. He comes across as a quality guy.

    Bet you Hillary loses in the general if she is the Democratic nominee.

    Giovanni Rodriguez

    Thanks for commenting, Brian. I see your point. But I am still of the opinion that the Clinton campaign has the objective of making Obama unelectable. Highly unusual for intra-party politics so it's noteworthy. The Democrats are famous/infamous for their inability to come together, and this strikes me as a new low. And in case there's any doubt about the Clinton strategy, note what Mark Penn (Clinton's chief strategist) said today: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=2219c106-db56-42f4-a825-73a665bb43fb&k=37276

    The comments to this entry are closed.