Now we've got a fight. Senator Obama clearly gave a terrific nomination acceptance speech. For heaven's sake, Chris Wallace, Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer even said so. If this isn't confirmation, what is?
It was beautiful and complete and most important he convinced me that in fact he is a formidable force who could throw a punch if the time came.. It must feel like some surreal out of body journey for him but last night, being finally able show himself to the world, he stepped up and scored big.
Remember that each of us is dealt a hand of cards in life. If you think that being black in this country doesn't amount to a few low cards then your kidding yourself. Add the interracial aspect, no father and no money and your ready to fold before you begin. Sen. Obama though, was dealt a few kings, maybe even an ace by having a good external image, a good mother and grandparents and a head on his shoulders. He stayed in the game but to do so he had to play his cards just right. The little intro film before he spoke may have given a clue about the source of a part of him--his reticence.
He said the only time his mother got mad was when she observed cruelty to others. And to her son she said, when people are mistreated, imagine standing in their shoes. This, working together with the don't be too uppity pledge that many African-Americans must take to succeed, could well of suppressed Obama's desire to engage. But it wasn't born from an emotional fear, it was a tried-and-true intellectual one.
Many instances along the way served to reinforce the relative safety of his reticence place. Recall his early "your likable enough Hillary" comment to Senator Clinton. Hardly a serious attack but success in Iowa came to a screeching halt in New Hampshire, reportedly due to this comment.
Maybe the campaign has finally adjusted to running against a man. A standard that sports served to normalize, where man on man rules nearly ignore black man on white man rules of yesteryear.
Well, to say the least Senator Obama did play his cards right and now has raked in about half the chips. The other half, ironically, may only be won if the full and genuine man emerges and that's what I hope we saw last night.
Showing posts with label Sen. Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sen. Clinton. Show all posts
Friday, August 29, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Presidential Test Failure
Did she say what I think she said? Apparently it was at least the second time Senator Clinton, making the point that she hadn't stuck around too long, publicly recollected that Sen. Robert Kennedy was killed in the month of June. The last time was in a Time Magazine article in March.
Here's what she said to The Sioux Falls Argus Leader about her political future. "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." Now here is part of her apology later in the day. "The Kennedy's have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy," referring to Sen. Kennedy's recent illness. She added, "And I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive."
Now back to the Time Magazine article. She said, "Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June Is nothing particularly unusual."
For this exercise let's forget that her husbands last opponent dropped out in March of 1992 and the more sinister inferences one might make out of her statement. Do you notice anything else here? She is wading through enormously sensitive waters and it would appear she is unable to locate the dry land. To be generous, it is these moments of apparent confusion about the truth that sunk her campaign.
Whether it be fables about Bosnian sniper fire, anecdotes about hospitals turning away life threateningly ill patients, planted debate questioners or irritating details, of which there were many, like anti-Obama adds featuring voters who later reveal not being registered in the state the adds were tailored to, it's this steady flow of controverting information that ultimately determined her fate.
One could argue that much of the blame lies with her staff. Surely someone noticed that the Bobby Kennedy comment was in bad taste when it was first used and should not be repeated. And on down the list there was in each case someone who dropped the ball.
If Senator Clinton was already wearing President Bush's shoes these matters could have been dealt with like, well, President Bush does. But she didn't get that far because people realized that they were actually looking at what a Hillary Clinton Presidency would look like and didn't like what they saw. Unlike most of the time, during an election we the people wield the power and we have done our job. Congratulations.
Here's what she said to The Sioux Falls Argus Leader about her political future. "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." Now here is part of her apology later in the day. "The Kennedy's have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy," referring to Sen. Kennedy's recent illness. She added, "And I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive."
Now back to the Time Magazine article. She said, "Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June Is nothing particularly unusual."
For this exercise let's forget that her husbands last opponent dropped out in March of 1992 and the more sinister inferences one might make out of her statement. Do you notice anything else here? She is wading through enormously sensitive waters and it would appear she is unable to locate the dry land. To be generous, it is these moments of apparent confusion about the truth that sunk her campaign.
Whether it be fables about Bosnian sniper fire, anecdotes about hospitals turning away life threateningly ill patients, planted debate questioners or irritating details, of which there were many, like anti-Obama adds featuring voters who later reveal not being registered in the state the adds were tailored to, it's this steady flow of controverting information that ultimately determined her fate.
One could argue that much of the blame lies with her staff. Surely someone noticed that the Bobby Kennedy comment was in bad taste when it was first used and should not be repeated. And on down the list there was in each case someone who dropped the ball.
If Senator Clinton was already wearing President Bush's shoes these matters could have been dealt with like, well, President Bush does. But she didn't get that far because people realized that they were actually looking at what a Hillary Clinton Presidency would look like and didn't like what they saw. Unlike most of the time, during an election we the people wield the power and we have done our job. Congratulations.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Boot Camp Is Over
Congratulations to Senator Obama. In my humble opinion, what sealed Senator Clintons fate was the gas tax holiday idea. Whoever came up with this idea completely misjudged the minds of the voters in this election. This dose of pandering was just too big to swallow and the phrase itself should live in infamy in the political blunder hall of fame. The idea of it will be scarier than the act of spelling the word potato or a picture having anything to do with a tank. A real Mission Accomplished or "Brownie, your doing a heck of a job," moment.
More than anything else, her campaign has shown what a Hillary Clinton presidency could have looked like and I'm happy to say that the voters weren't fooled.
Are we certain what a Barrack Obama presidency will look like? Absolutely not but using the election campaign gauge in this case provides a far more optimistic outlook.
So what is it that I wish most out of an Obama presidency? I, like many Americans, do worry about the threat of terrorism. An enemy has struck once and it's fair to say, wishes to do it again. A basic emotional level response is to lash out at such an enemy and we did that. Unfortunately we did it wrong and in a very big way.
Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are wise to the ways of Washington which means they owe too much to too many people to ever really significantly change anything. This is what is behind Senator Obama's claim that he will only attempt this once. He knows that certainly in eight years and probably in four he will no longer have the ability to achieve the level of change possible as a newcomer. I just want to try a new approach to foreign policy and Senator Obama has gained my trust.
This is not to say that Senator Clinton or McCain are not skilled at what they do nor to to say they are not committed to the people of this country. But combined with their successes and commitment are deficiencies and it's the duty of the American people to seek to remedy those shortcomings when possible. It is that time and we must recognize it and take the steps necessary to fulfill our responsibilities to ourselves and future generations. Just my opinion.
And back to politics, we thankfully won't have to suffer through what seemed like an endless stream of political errors committed by the Clinton campaign. Let's see what the general election brings. If Senator McCains wifes recent statement about her husband not running a negative campaign holds true we may be spared what we just witnessed. But I suspect he must think he's pretty far ahead and will stay that way because that would be the only way he could keep that promise.
One more thing, I know someone who went to the Punahou School in Hawaii where Senator Obama attended. I was speaking to him the other day and jokingly asked if he knew Barrack Obama? To my surprise he said yes he did. He said he was one year older than Barry but knew him from playing sports. That's how he knew him, as Barry. He said that when he digs out his year book he'll show me what he wrote. He said it says something like have good summer then it's signed Barry O with a little afro on the O. So 70's.
More than anything else, her campaign has shown what a Hillary Clinton presidency could have looked like and I'm happy to say that the voters weren't fooled.
Are we certain what a Barrack Obama presidency will look like? Absolutely not but using the election campaign gauge in this case provides a far more optimistic outlook.
So what is it that I wish most out of an Obama presidency? I, like many Americans, do worry about the threat of terrorism. An enemy has struck once and it's fair to say, wishes to do it again. A basic emotional level response is to lash out at such an enemy and we did that. Unfortunately we did it wrong and in a very big way.
Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are wise to the ways of Washington which means they owe too much to too many people to ever really significantly change anything. This is what is behind Senator Obama's claim that he will only attempt this once. He knows that certainly in eight years and probably in four he will no longer have the ability to achieve the level of change possible as a newcomer. I just want to try a new approach to foreign policy and Senator Obama has gained my trust.
This is not to say that Senator Clinton or McCain are not skilled at what they do nor to to say they are not committed to the people of this country. But combined with their successes and commitment are deficiencies and it's the duty of the American people to seek to remedy those shortcomings when possible. It is that time and we must recognize it and take the steps necessary to fulfill our responsibilities to ourselves and future generations. Just my opinion.
And back to politics, we thankfully won't have to suffer through what seemed like an endless stream of political errors committed by the Clinton campaign. Let's see what the general election brings. If Senator McCains wifes recent statement about her husband not running a negative campaign holds true we may be spared what we just witnessed. But I suspect he must think he's pretty far ahead and will stay that way because that would be the only way he could keep that promise.
One more thing, I know someone who went to the Punahou School in Hawaii where Senator Obama attended. I was speaking to him the other day and jokingly asked if he knew Barrack Obama? To my surprise he said yes he did. He said he was one year older than Barry but knew him from playing sports. That's how he knew him, as Barry. He said that when he digs out his year book he'll show me what he wrote. He said it says something like have good summer then it's signed Barry O with a little afro on the O. So 70's.
Friday, May 02, 2008
JoePa Primary
I remember from the last Presidential election that the view gets pretty hazy about now. There is just way too much information to sort through. Even if it was all true, the average person cannot dedicate the time necessary to understand it all. The opinions fly and some have merit but most don't because most of the political pundits are anything but unbiased. More like it, call it a personal mission to be as influential as possible for egotistical reasons along with getting their prices up. Of course many strongly believe that their direction for the country is altruistic. They think their work to convince the little people of the need to become complicit in their plan is noble. But lets face it, at this point, as far as the Democratic nominee goes the rest of the population including yours truly have pretty much made up our minds and barring some extraordinary news are pretty darn sure who we will be voting for.
I need to go back to Pennsylvania because it was such a reminder of what Senator Obama is up against. In one telling move the Obama campaign refused to dole out street money in Pennsylvania. That's the precinct level money passed around to motivate workers. It should be illegal but it is part of the political tradition in Pennsylvania so it has become untouchable. This of course only bolsters my opinion of Senator Obama and I'm not suggesting he should have complied but in the politics of Philadelphia this was a blunder. This is an example of the dilemma that faces this campaign.
I know a bit about Pennsylvania because I worked with many people from there. They were new and different characters in my life. There was one real peach of a guy who grew up on Duck Shit Alley in Pringle Hill which is part of Wilkes-Barre. He was born without much but I never heard him say a bad thing about anybody and he had a heart of gold.
The Crown Royal drinking Hillary Clinton may or may not be surprised to know that today there are clubs in Wilkes Barre/Scranton that women can drink in but can't be members of. That's not to say that the women who attend these clubs want to be members, according to a friend from Wilkes-Barre. She said she reminds the members regularly, "if a woman ran this stupid club maybe it wouldn't be so deep in the hole." She told me that there are members who keep paying dues years after they move away just to have the card. "Can you imagine that, of course it's only five dollar a year," she said.
I went to a Ball Game in San Diego once with another guy from Wilkes-Barre who was so drunk he fell over a railing and down ten feet to a lower deck and laughed that he held onto his cup.
I was introduced to the shots and beer thing in Pennsylvania in the dead of winter as what seemed a practical matter. I've spent time in Pennsylvania basements talking about great floods that reached levels twenty feet above where I was standing and have been to small town hockey games and listened to stories about town populations that in 1935 were triple what they are today. I've heard the stories of the once thriving steel mills and the struggle to survive cold winters in poorly insulated houses and scrounging for coal.To this day good jobs are hard to come by and they often go to the people who "know somebody" or thought to anyway. The fact is that the people I've known from Pennsylvania are a little tougher and not so bothered by the same things as me. I am glad to have know them for this alone.
Things change slowly there and I think that it is fair to say that life has been a little harder in much of the state than in much of the rest of the country. It's a big state east to west especially and I've never been to Philadelphia but I know that where I have been change is viewed skeptically because it's track record is so bad. The odds that change will be for the better are viewed as even at best.
The more I think about Pennsylvania the more I think it is remarkable that Senator Obama was able to get the votes he did there.
I need to go back to Pennsylvania because it was such a reminder of what Senator Obama is up against. In one telling move the Obama campaign refused to dole out street money in Pennsylvania. That's the precinct level money passed around to motivate workers. It should be illegal but it is part of the political tradition in Pennsylvania so it has become untouchable. This of course only bolsters my opinion of Senator Obama and I'm not suggesting he should have complied but in the politics of Philadelphia this was a blunder. This is an example of the dilemma that faces this campaign.
I know a bit about Pennsylvania because I worked with many people from there. They were new and different characters in my life. There was one real peach of a guy who grew up on Duck Shit Alley in Pringle Hill which is part of Wilkes-Barre. He was born without much but I never heard him say a bad thing about anybody and he had a heart of gold.
The Crown Royal drinking Hillary Clinton may or may not be surprised to know that today there are clubs in Wilkes Barre/Scranton that women can drink in but can't be members of. That's not to say that the women who attend these clubs want to be members, according to a friend from Wilkes-Barre. She said she reminds the members regularly, "if a woman ran this stupid club maybe it wouldn't be so deep in the hole." She told me that there are members who keep paying dues years after they move away just to have the card. "Can you imagine that, of course it's only five dollar a year," she said.
I went to a Ball Game in San Diego once with another guy from Wilkes-Barre who was so drunk he fell over a railing and down ten feet to a lower deck and laughed that he held onto his cup.
I was introduced to the shots and beer thing in Pennsylvania in the dead of winter as what seemed a practical matter. I've spent time in Pennsylvania basements talking about great floods that reached levels twenty feet above where I was standing and have been to small town hockey games and listened to stories about town populations that in 1935 were triple what they are today. I've heard the stories of the once thriving steel mills and the struggle to survive cold winters in poorly insulated houses and scrounging for coal.To this day good jobs are hard to come by and they often go to the people who "know somebody" or thought to anyway. The fact is that the people I've known from Pennsylvania are a little tougher and not so bothered by the same things as me. I am glad to have know them for this alone.
Things change slowly there and I think that it is fair to say that life has been a little harder in much of the state than in much of the rest of the country. It's a big state east to west especially and I've never been to Philadelphia but I know that where I have been change is viewed skeptically because it's track record is so bad. The odds that change will be for the better are viewed as even at best.
The more I think about Pennsylvania the more I think it is remarkable that Senator Obama was able to get the votes he did there.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
You'd Think Reverend Wright Was Leroy Brown
Do people really think that if your pastor or priest or rabbi says something you disagree with that you should get up and leave forever. I disagree with plenty of what I hear in church but I stay put. I'm sure they don't consider me an agent for them nor do I consider them agents for me. We coexist because I accept that on balance they mean well and do more good than bad. Remember, it's about God, we're the the imperfect ones.
And isn't respect for individual thinking what should really trump here. If not, then why isn't every loony family member, friend, professor, staff member or supporter paid more attention to. What about Billy Carter's influence on Jimmy Carter or Roger Clinton on Bill Clinton. What about Geraldine Ferraro's influence on Senator Clinton? I find her words about Senator Obama more cleverly chosen but no less disturbing. In case you didn't hear, let me repeat it here for you. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman of any color he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is."
Senator Clinton's response was, "Well, I don't believe in that, and I think it's important that we try and stay focused on issues that matter to the American people." Senator Clinton, this issue does matter to a lot of people and it's why Reverend Wrights audiences like to hear about it occasionally, if for nothing else than to let them know that they are not alone in their struggles.
Isn't that what every church provides. Some just do it differently than others.
Reverend Wright shouldn't have dropped the n-bomb or used profanity of any kind and should have used his brain a little more but he did not invalidate the fact that for the most part white Americans enjoy the advantage of being first judged for their deeds-a luxury not yet afforded all African Americans.
Fire and brimstone style prophetic oratory was not invented by African American preachers and in fact early evangelical preachers like Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were allowed to draw and quarter America for it's sins and their deeds went unpunished. They even had actual victims-perceived threats like Jews, gays and pro-choice supporters and so on.
Beyond that remember that religion is a business because without donations it doesn't exist. For lack of a better word, entertainment brings people into church and that is why Reverend Wright was there. He built the membership up by giving patrons what they wanted. And like it or not that is how mortal humans behave even when given divine responsibilities.
Sure I'd like to see them all stick to matters of religion and faith but that genie was never in the bottle.
So with their newly found fodder we'll have to endure all those who wouldn't have ever voted for a black man named Barrack Obama in the first place. They will seize vigorously every opportunity to destroy his chances.
I know one thing for sure; the loudest of them I will listen to least.
And isn't respect for individual thinking what should really trump here. If not, then why isn't every loony family member, friend, professor, staff member or supporter paid more attention to. What about Billy Carter's influence on Jimmy Carter or Roger Clinton on Bill Clinton. What about Geraldine Ferraro's influence on Senator Clinton? I find her words about Senator Obama more cleverly chosen but no less disturbing. In case you didn't hear, let me repeat it here for you. "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman of any color he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is."
Senator Clinton's response was, "Well, I don't believe in that, and I think it's important that we try and stay focused on issues that matter to the American people." Senator Clinton, this issue does matter to a lot of people and it's why Reverend Wrights audiences like to hear about it occasionally, if for nothing else than to let them know that they are not alone in their struggles.
Isn't that what every church provides. Some just do it differently than others.
Reverend Wright shouldn't have dropped the n-bomb or used profanity of any kind and should have used his brain a little more but he did not invalidate the fact that for the most part white Americans enjoy the advantage of being first judged for their deeds-a luxury not yet afforded all African Americans.
Fire and brimstone style prophetic oratory was not invented by African American preachers and in fact early evangelical preachers like Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were allowed to draw and quarter America for it's sins and their deeds went unpunished. They even had actual victims-perceived threats like Jews, gays and pro-choice supporters and so on.
Beyond that remember that religion is a business because without donations it doesn't exist. For lack of a better word, entertainment brings people into church and that is why Reverend Wright was there. He built the membership up by giving patrons what they wanted. And like it or not that is how mortal humans behave even when given divine responsibilities.
Sure I'd like to see them all stick to matters of religion and faith but that genie was never in the bottle.
So with their newly found fodder we'll have to endure all those who wouldn't have ever voted for a black man named Barrack Obama in the first place. They will seize vigorously every opportunity to destroy his chances.
I know one thing for sure; the loudest of them I will listen to least.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Enjoy It While It Lasts
I got lucky and scored some good tickets to a Laker game the other night. They played Sacramento who I am a fan of because I lived in that area for several years. If you haven't tried it, suffice to say that it's not a comfortable thing to sit amongst a bunch of enthusiastic home team fans and want the other team to win. Making matters worse, Sacramento lead most of the game and in a dramatic ending won by a single point. I had to choose the middle ground and didn't root for either team because I didn't want to subject my family members to a fracas. It took a lot of self restraint and took a little of the fun out of it but it was a great game with mediocre defense which provided for a lot of made plays which is my favorite thing to watch.
What is so remarkable is that no matter how breathtakingly good the visiting teams plays were, it was met with dead silence.
To me the game of basketball can take on a near performance art quality when played well and viewed up close. But their is no mistaking that, all being equal, your favorite teams well executed plays are the best.
Being the political season and me being glued to it, you had to expect that I would transform this into something to do with politics, right? Well sure enough, my point is that like basketball fans the media and everyone else on the planet is biased about their picks in this Presidential election. I find that only when this is really taken to heart and accepted as fact can I step back and see this thing for what it really is.
For example, and it is hard to say this as an Obama supporter but, Saturday Night Live had it right in their season opener suggesting that the media was biased against Senator Clinton. To me it was very obvious. There were many excuses but I don't think any reasonable person could deny it. SNL being a New York City product and treasure consciously or unconsciously came to their Senators aid in pointing out the obvious. There has now been a call of foul from Obama supporters that SNL is biased against Senator Obama.
With a little introspection many in the media have now rushed to the starboard side of the S.S. Neutral. She'll likely list there for a while until a bigger story comes along.
One thing you can be sure of is that the power brokers, the ones who are compelled to put their opinions out there in an effort to convince others, be it the media or through the media, have already made up their minds. One fortunate byproduct is that this is as close to egalitarianism as we ever get around here because the common folk have something they need very badly and that is our vote. It's usually the other way around so being unaccustomed to this role and unsure how to convince us they make plenty mistakes. These stumbles and blunders tell us a lot about them and their real intent and makes watching that much more fun. Enjoy it while it lasts.
What is so remarkable is that no matter how breathtakingly good the visiting teams plays were, it was met with dead silence.
To me the game of basketball can take on a near performance art quality when played well and viewed up close. But their is no mistaking that, all being equal, your favorite teams well executed plays are the best.
Being the political season and me being glued to it, you had to expect that I would transform this into something to do with politics, right? Well sure enough, my point is that like basketball fans the media and everyone else on the planet is biased about their picks in this Presidential election. I find that only when this is really taken to heart and accepted as fact can I step back and see this thing for what it really is.
For example, and it is hard to say this as an Obama supporter but, Saturday Night Live had it right in their season opener suggesting that the media was biased against Senator Clinton. To me it was very obvious. There were many excuses but I don't think any reasonable person could deny it. SNL being a New York City product and treasure consciously or unconsciously came to their Senators aid in pointing out the obvious. There has now been a call of foul from Obama supporters that SNL is biased against Senator Obama.
With a little introspection many in the media have now rushed to the starboard side of the S.S. Neutral. She'll likely list there for a while until a bigger story comes along.
One thing you can be sure of is that the power brokers, the ones who are compelled to put their opinions out there in an effort to convince others, be it the media or through the media, have already made up their minds. One fortunate byproduct is that this is as close to egalitarianism as we ever get around here because the common folk have something they need very badly and that is our vote. It's usually the other way around so being unaccustomed to this role and unsure how to convince us they make plenty mistakes. These stumbles and blunders tell us a lot about them and their real intent and makes watching that much more fun. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Time to re-group
When it comes to political speeches, if it starts sounding like a different way to say the same thing, then chances are it's stopped working. Senator Obama tried to use the same stump speeches perhaps a week longer than he should have. In states where his message needed to be as fresh as possible it wasn't and the Clinton and McCain campaigns assertion of empty words was able to take root.
It's probably due to fatigue but when your strategy includes, if it ain't broke don't fix it, you had better be sure of it.
Re-invention can be risky but not as risky as what just happened in Texas and Ohio. Never underestimate our tendency to cut people down to size when they get ahead and remember who he's running against, a prominent political figure who not too long ago was the presumed heir to the throne.
Time to dig deep and find some more of what you are before any more people start to question it.
It's probably due to fatigue but when your strategy includes, if it ain't broke don't fix it, you had better be sure of it.
Re-invention can be risky but not as risky as what just happened in Texas and Ohio. Never underestimate our tendency to cut people down to size when they get ahead and remember who he's running against, a prominent political figure who not too long ago was the presumed heir to the throne.
Time to dig deep and find some more of what you are before any more people start to question it.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Latino Vote
I only have a few minutes here but can anyone tell me why, with 38% of the population here in California, that Sen. Obamas campaign has not pointed out that Latino leaders were not exactly enamored with President Bill Clintons policies on immigration during the period of his administration. I remember speaking to a very high level Hispanic member of the Catholic clergy who, in his support for President G.W Bush, explained in great detail how President Clinton's legislation during that time did a lot to hurt immigrants and their families.
This kind of information would seem to counter-balance what is being portrayed as a given that Latino voters will vote for Sen. Clinton.
I can't argue with the Obama campaign strategy though. All you have to do is read this mornings (Sunday) L A Times political section to realize that whether consciously or not you can't help but think their coverage is biased against Sen. Obama. The LA Times editorial board did endorse Senator Obama and Senator McCain in the Opinion section in the same edition but the editorial board operates independently of the news operation. It was more about omission and it was subtle unless like me you look forward to reading about Senator Obama. There's just not much there compared to the other candidates. They did suspiciously place an article about the nuclear industry contributing more to Sen. Obama than all the other candidates. They also excluded something in the condensed columnar "Where the candidates stand," area. On the immigration column Sen. Obama's position on the issuance of drivers licenses to illegal immigrants is missing. Why is this important? Because those who thought they heard it in the last debate or were told by someone who did can't confirm it before the Primary.
This kind of information would seem to counter-balance what is being portrayed as a given that Latino voters will vote for Sen. Clinton.
I can't argue with the Obama campaign strategy though. All you have to do is read this mornings (Sunday) L A Times political section to realize that whether consciously or not you can't help but think their coverage is biased against Sen. Obama. The LA Times editorial board did endorse Senator Obama and Senator McCain in the Opinion section in the same edition but the editorial board operates independently of the news operation. It was more about omission and it was subtle unless like me you look forward to reading about Senator Obama. There's just not much there compared to the other candidates. They did suspiciously place an article about the nuclear industry contributing more to Sen. Obama than all the other candidates. They also excluded something in the condensed columnar "Where the candidates stand," area. On the immigration column Sen. Obama's position on the issuance of drivers licenses to illegal immigrants is missing. Why is this important? Because those who thought they heard it in the last debate or were told by someone who did can't confirm it before the Primary.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Business as Usual For Some
Imagine this, former President Clinton is walking through a hotel in Las Vegas with daughter Chelsea and he overhears someone telling someone else that if they vote for Sen. Clinton they will be given a job assignment that will keep them from going to the caucus. He then tells his story to a reporter and adds that he hasn't seen tactics like these in decades. Now remember that the former President doesn't do anything inconspicuously in public. He has secret service, staff, reporters and onlookers surrounding him at all times. And if this tactic was rampant as he accuses, wouldn't one person come and tell him that it happened to them which he could then pass on to the press for confirmation. I believe that the likelihood of this happening as he said is minimal.
So why does anybody believe him? When we know a man that lies and the circumstances don't support what he has told us why do we extend the benefit of the doubt most of the time? I do admire benevolence but at another place and time please.
The former President was cut loose after New Hampshire where I suspect he convinced his wife that he had a lot to do with her victory there. Now unbridled, he is bringing to bear the full-strength version of Clinton style politics. Their absolute belief that they are what the country needs and the Presidency is their calling creates the greater good that ordinary truth telling is subordinated to. How can you know when to expect truth or lies under these circumstances?
In an effort to find some truth I thought it would be informative to look backwards and check the stories from the States they've left behind. There is usually a somber tone when the storm passes and people stop to assess their decisions. Well it didn't take long to find people angry with Senator Clinton. Many felt mislead by the Clinton campaigns 11th hour flyer's which distorted Senator Obama's position on abortion. Especially some public officials who put signature to it.
We're also learning from victims of push poling in Iowa who said they actually voted for Senator Obama because they did not get deceptive calls from his campaign like they did from what they believed could only have come from the Clinton side.
Moving forward we have the latest and most sophisticated attack on Senator Obama by Senator Clinton yet. In this case she takes something Senator Obama said and twists it into something quite different. I'm replicating it here because it's so informative in a kind of look inside their heads sort of way. Senator Obama said to a Reno Nevada newspaper, "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 60's and the 70's and Government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to the sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing. I think we're in one of those times right now, where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. That were bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having and there not useful. And the Republican approach, has played itself out. I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
Now here is what Senator Clinton said Senator Obama said, in the South Carolina debate. "The facts are that he said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years... Now, I personally think they had ideas, but they were bad ideas. They were bad ideas for America. They were ideas like privatizing Social Security, like moving back from a balanced budget and a surplus to a deficit and debt."
So you have to ask the question, did she really not get his point? Given that she and her husband are on the record praising President Reagan in similar fashion in the past I think it's clear that this was a big fat calculated deception. It was ginned up partially in response to Senator Obama's less than glowing assessment of President Clinton's term but mostly because they will stop at nothing to win.
So why does anybody believe him? When we know a man that lies and the circumstances don't support what he has told us why do we extend the benefit of the doubt most of the time? I do admire benevolence but at another place and time please.
The former President was cut loose after New Hampshire where I suspect he convinced his wife that he had a lot to do with her victory there. Now unbridled, he is bringing to bear the full-strength version of Clinton style politics. Their absolute belief that they are what the country needs and the Presidency is their calling creates the greater good that ordinary truth telling is subordinated to. How can you know when to expect truth or lies under these circumstances?
In an effort to find some truth I thought it would be informative to look backwards and check the stories from the States they've left behind. There is usually a somber tone when the storm passes and people stop to assess their decisions. Well it didn't take long to find people angry with Senator Clinton. Many felt mislead by the Clinton campaigns 11th hour flyer's which distorted Senator Obama's position on abortion. Especially some public officials who put signature to it.
We're also learning from victims of push poling in Iowa who said they actually voted for Senator Obama because they did not get deceptive calls from his campaign like they did from what they believed could only have come from the Clinton side.
Moving forward we have the latest and most sophisticated attack on Senator Obama by Senator Clinton yet. In this case she takes something Senator Obama said and twists it into something quite different. I'm replicating it here because it's so informative in a kind of look inside their heads sort of way. Senator Obama said to a Reno Nevada newspaper, "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 60's and the 70's and Government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to the sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing. I think we're in one of those times right now, where people feel like things as they are going aren't working. That were bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having and there not useful. And the Republican approach, has played itself out. I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
Now here is what Senator Clinton said Senator Obama said, in the South Carolina debate. "The facts are that he said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years... Now, I personally think they had ideas, but they were bad ideas. They were bad ideas for America. They were ideas like privatizing Social Security, like moving back from a balanced budget and a surplus to a deficit and debt."
So you have to ask the question, did she really not get his point? Given that she and her husband are on the record praising President Reagan in similar fashion in the past I think it's clear that this was a big fat calculated deception. It was ginned up partially in response to Senator Obama's less than glowing assessment of President Clinton's term but mostly because they will stop at nothing to win.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Abracadabra
How do you deal with what the Clintons pulled off in New Hampshire? Do you pick apart the "well that hurts my feelings," broken wing baby bird likability answer she gave during the ABC/Facebook debate or the "emotional moment" on the campaign trail? Or was it the lies about Sen. Obama's record on abortion? Could it have been her crediting President Johnson for Civil Rights and in the process discrediting Martin Luther King? Or maybe it was the 'biggest fairy tale ever distortion of Sen. Obama's stance on the Iraq war? The he's to liberal, he's too conservative jabberwocky maybe? The list goes on and on and we will never really know for sure. What we do know is that their backs were against the wall and once again they figured it out and with sucess came a double dose of exhilaration, in about the only way left for them to have it, back from the brink, the come-back kids. Phoenix style.
Sometimes you look across the table at the guy who just took all your money and want to wring his neck and sometimes you let it slide and even give him a little respect. So for now we'll focus on the good news. Remember, like when you catch a virus, we have now inoculated ourselves against these ploys in the future so consider them tools that are gone from the toolbox. If she cries again she's toast.
No doubt there will be others for which we must remain vigilant. It will take on a completely different form so get ready. I've said it before but I'll say it again, there is nothing they won't do to win.
First up there will be a image makeover. They just hired a new marketing whiz whose client list includes Wall Mart. In the waning hours in New Hampshire they must have gotten a hold of the Sears guy, you know, "the softer side of Sears." But seriously, remember that all states are not the same and she may have "found her own voice" in New Hampshire but that may not fly in the next state and the attention that was brought to her New Hampshire strategy may come back to haunt her when she needs to tailor her next own voice.
Sometimes you look across the table at the guy who just took all your money and want to wring his neck and sometimes you let it slide and even give him a little respect. So for now we'll focus on the good news. Remember, like when you catch a virus, we have now inoculated ourselves against these ploys in the future so consider them tools that are gone from the toolbox. If she cries again she's toast.
No doubt there will be others for which we must remain vigilant. It will take on a completely different form so get ready. I've said it before but I'll say it again, there is nothing they won't do to win.
First up there will be a image makeover. They just hired a new marketing whiz whose client list includes Wall Mart. In the waning hours in New Hampshire they must have gotten a hold of the Sears guy, you know, "the softer side of Sears." But seriously, remember that all states are not the same and she may have "found her own voice" in New Hampshire but that may not fly in the next state and the attention that was brought to her New Hampshire strategy may come back to haunt her when she needs to tailor her next own voice.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
AFL/CIO Dem Debate
MSNBC went with their entertainment newsman Kieth Oberman to referee this event. His day job is being MSNBC'S counter-weight to Fox News where he slings mud and generally takes the low road in challenging the competition. Luckily we were spared the insufferable sermonized drivel he has become famous for. In fact in last nights role and in others, to be fair, he's done a decent enough job. I guess that was the Kieth Oberman who was influenced by Hal Fishman who he duly thanked at the end of the debate. Fishman, a 46 year TV news veteran from Los Angeles, died yesterday. He was an old school, quality newsman who will be missed.
Anyway, may I go backwards because I'm forgetting this thing so fast that soon I'll have nothing to say. Probably not a good sign.
Question? What exactly is the point in interviewing candidates campaign managers, media strategists and the like as we are routinely subjected to with last night being no exception? Chris Mathews did the honors this time. What a ridiculous way to try to learn anything. Chris, bring their mothers on next time. At least there would be a slight chance to hear something less than glowing.
Then there are the experts that size up what just happened. Now tell me something-how do you feel when someone says they know what you want? A little irritated maybe? Let's face it, people don't tell other people this unless they want an argument or worse. So why do the so called political experts do it all the time. This time it was Pat Buchanan and Willie Brown who said over and over, "what the American people want..." I understand that they each were candidates in campaigns and have insight but that is the extent of it. To claim they know what people want is flagrantly false and when they say it I find it insulting and stop listening.
Now to the debate. I think that one objective and informative way to judge this debate is to look at how they handled the pandering. The event host was the AFL/CIO so let's look at who pulled the blue collar stuff off the shelf with the greatest of ease. With potentially millions watching it is interesting to see what balance they strike between the spirited live audience and the inanimate yet important home viewers. I'm after a shamelessness quotient here and there were five winners. The shared award goes to Rep. Kucinich, Gov. Richardson, Sen. Edwards, Sen. Dodd and Sen. Clinton, more or less in that order.
From opening sympathies expressed for the Utah Mine Workers through bad toys and human rights violations in China it seemed that these candidates decided to go for the bird in the hand. I am not saying that these issues or NAFTA, outsourcing, trade, corporate aid, health care, medicaid, lobbyist, or exporting jobs etc. are not important and my heart sincerely does go out to the Utah mine workers and their families but you can't be or promise everything to everyone without looking somewhat disingenuous and they did. Rep. Kucinich, the self proclaimed card carrying member of the AFL/CIO promised so much I was left to wonder if there was going to be anything left for me when he was done. He said he would withdraw from NAFTA in his first week in office and asked, "why do you need an infrastructure?" Then said, "so you can create a base for new jobs." In one way or another he seemed to try to make the AFL/CIO the center of the universe and he made me want to grab my wallet thinking about how he will pay for it all. Sen. Dodd said such things as he would ban outsourcing of jobs and China is our adversary. Gov. Richardson repeated many of the same promises along with Sen.Edwards blaming lobbyists for everything including NAFTA and even telling of a time when, "no scab can cross a picket line." Mr. Oberman had to settle him down by reminding Sen. Edwards that he came from a right to work state. Sen. Edwards conceded that North Carolina does have a very small organized labor movement. What I heard from most of these candidates was the usher to protectionism and I wonder if anyone remembered the pitfalls of the past.
Sen. Clinton was far more clever but chimed in with a broad study of NAFTA and said it needed broad reform and smart trade, trade prosecutors, renewable energy for jobs to lift the American worker and criticized China by agreeing with Sen. Bidens comments.
So how did Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden do on the pandering test? Better, I believe. Sen. Obama said there are some winners and some losers in matters of trade and he thought NAFTA needed to be amended. He said no one wants to lose their job but globalization is here and we have to address special interests and a tax code that favors corporations. In regards to China he said we have to recognize arguments on both sides. He said it is hard to negotiate when they are our bankers.
Sen. Biden spoke of his attempts to deal with the infrastructure problem with a proposed 20 billion dollar bill. He said we don't need anymore studies. The subways in New York along with 27% of the bridges are unsafe. He said that it's a presidents job to create jobs not export jobs and there is a lack of presidential leadership. He also repeated Sen. Obama's statement about China in a slightly different way saying that China holds the mortgage on our house.
You can see here that these candidates are thoughtful when answering questions of this nature. Where the other candidates showed little restraint and tried to please everyone, Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden met self imposed resistance to such temptations. This to me is a sign of integrity and general good character and I found this to be the case through the whole debate.That's what I'll be looking for come election time.
On the other hand the craft of politics has begun in earnest. Sen.Clinton is now trying every trick in the book to bury Sen.Obama but so far not succeeding. Her position on Pakistan and actionable intelligence that she criticized Sen. Obama for is shrewed but deceitful. She previously was on the record with a position identical to Sen. Obama's and as Sen. Biden pointed out, when it comes to actionable intelligence, this is the policy of this Government if not the law. The statement about not being able to say what you think does seem as Sen. Obama points out, an insider approach. And check out her odd man out game. "Chris Dodd and I were on a panel..." or "amen to Joe Biden," and this was for a point Sen. Biden took from Sen. Obama's about China being our bankers and changed it to holding the mortgage on our house. And she thinks it unwise to telegraph your game plan. Hers is as clear as it gets. How about her "3 point plan.'' The back door here is Al Qaeda. To be used conveniently should you get in a jamb. Wonder where she learned that one? In the mean time Sen. Obama nails a question about immigration reform and clarifies to Mr.Oberman that he does not have federal lobbyists bundling for him nor does he accept PAC money. He also defended a two pronged attack from Sen. Clinton and Sen. Dodd on the Pakistan issue. He did try to change what he said previously about Pakistan's President Musharraf and I've duly taken note of this.
Finally, from her fathers dream baseball stadium fable to "if you want to fight the right wing machine, I'm your girl," comment, this is one high gloss politician. What kind of arrogance would make her want to utter the words right wing anything. Recall who started the whole right wing conspiracy counter attack strategy while obstructing justice over the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Does Tammy Wynette and stand (or not) by your man ring a bell. Anyway you cut it, it shows poor judgement.
Because this was so damn cynical my promise to you is that my next post will be light hearted. How's that, a promise I can keep.
Anyway, may I go backwards because I'm forgetting this thing so fast that soon I'll have nothing to say. Probably not a good sign.
Question? What exactly is the point in interviewing candidates campaign managers, media strategists and the like as we are routinely subjected to with last night being no exception? Chris Mathews did the honors this time. What a ridiculous way to try to learn anything. Chris, bring their mothers on next time. At least there would be a slight chance to hear something less than glowing.
Then there are the experts that size up what just happened. Now tell me something-how do you feel when someone says they know what you want? A little irritated maybe? Let's face it, people don't tell other people this unless they want an argument or worse. So why do the so called political experts do it all the time. This time it was Pat Buchanan and Willie Brown who said over and over, "what the American people want..." I understand that they each were candidates in campaigns and have insight but that is the extent of it. To claim they know what people want is flagrantly false and when they say it I find it insulting and stop listening.
Now to the debate. I think that one objective and informative way to judge this debate is to look at how they handled the pandering. The event host was the AFL/CIO so let's look at who pulled the blue collar stuff off the shelf with the greatest of ease. With potentially millions watching it is interesting to see what balance they strike between the spirited live audience and the inanimate yet important home viewers. I'm after a shamelessness quotient here and there were five winners. The shared award goes to Rep. Kucinich, Gov. Richardson, Sen. Edwards, Sen. Dodd and Sen. Clinton, more or less in that order.
From opening sympathies expressed for the Utah Mine Workers through bad toys and human rights violations in China it seemed that these candidates decided to go for the bird in the hand. I am not saying that these issues or NAFTA, outsourcing, trade, corporate aid, health care, medicaid, lobbyist, or exporting jobs etc. are not important and my heart sincerely does go out to the Utah mine workers and their families but you can't be or promise everything to everyone without looking somewhat disingenuous and they did. Rep. Kucinich, the self proclaimed card carrying member of the AFL/CIO promised so much I was left to wonder if there was going to be anything left for me when he was done. He said he would withdraw from NAFTA in his first week in office and asked, "why do you need an infrastructure?" Then said, "so you can create a base for new jobs." In one way or another he seemed to try to make the AFL/CIO the center of the universe and he made me want to grab my wallet thinking about how he will pay for it all. Sen. Dodd said such things as he would ban outsourcing of jobs and China is our adversary. Gov. Richardson repeated many of the same promises along with Sen.Edwards blaming lobbyists for everything including NAFTA and even telling of a time when, "no scab can cross a picket line." Mr. Oberman had to settle him down by reminding Sen. Edwards that he came from a right to work state. Sen. Edwards conceded that North Carolina does have a very small organized labor movement. What I heard from most of these candidates was the usher to protectionism and I wonder if anyone remembered the pitfalls of the past.
Sen. Clinton was far more clever but chimed in with a broad study of NAFTA and said it needed broad reform and smart trade, trade prosecutors, renewable energy for jobs to lift the American worker and criticized China by agreeing with Sen. Bidens comments.
So how did Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden do on the pandering test? Better, I believe. Sen. Obama said there are some winners and some losers in matters of trade and he thought NAFTA needed to be amended. He said no one wants to lose their job but globalization is here and we have to address special interests and a tax code that favors corporations. In regards to China he said we have to recognize arguments on both sides. He said it is hard to negotiate when they are our bankers.
Sen. Biden spoke of his attempts to deal with the infrastructure problem with a proposed 20 billion dollar bill. He said we don't need anymore studies. The subways in New York along with 27% of the bridges are unsafe. He said that it's a presidents job to create jobs not export jobs and there is a lack of presidential leadership. He also repeated Sen. Obama's statement about China in a slightly different way saying that China holds the mortgage on our house.
You can see here that these candidates are thoughtful when answering questions of this nature. Where the other candidates showed little restraint and tried to please everyone, Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden met self imposed resistance to such temptations. This to me is a sign of integrity and general good character and I found this to be the case through the whole debate.That's what I'll be looking for come election time.
On the other hand the craft of politics has begun in earnest. Sen.Clinton is now trying every trick in the book to bury Sen.Obama but so far not succeeding. Her position on Pakistan and actionable intelligence that she criticized Sen. Obama for is shrewed but deceitful. She previously was on the record with a position identical to Sen. Obama's and as Sen. Biden pointed out, when it comes to actionable intelligence, this is the policy of this Government if not the law. The statement about not being able to say what you think does seem as Sen. Obama points out, an insider approach. And check out her odd man out game. "Chris Dodd and I were on a panel..." or "amen to Joe Biden," and this was for a point Sen. Biden took from Sen. Obama's about China being our bankers and changed it to holding the mortgage on our house. And she thinks it unwise to telegraph your game plan. Hers is as clear as it gets. How about her "3 point plan.'' The back door here is Al Qaeda. To be used conveniently should you get in a jamb. Wonder where she learned that one? In the mean time Sen. Obama nails a question about immigration reform and clarifies to Mr.Oberman that he does not have federal lobbyists bundling for him nor does he accept PAC money. He also defended a two pronged attack from Sen. Clinton and Sen. Dodd on the Pakistan issue. He did try to change what he said previously about Pakistan's President Musharraf and I've duly taken note of this.
Finally, from her fathers dream baseball stadium fable to "if you want to fight the right wing machine, I'm your girl," comment, this is one high gloss politician. What kind of arrogance would make her want to utter the words right wing anything. Recall who started the whole right wing conspiracy counter attack strategy while obstructing justice over the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Does Tammy Wynette and stand (or not) by your man ring a bell. Anyway you cut it, it shows poor judgement.
Because this was so damn cynical my promise to you is that my next post will be light hearted. How's that, a promise I can keep.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
CNN/Youtube Dem debate
My hat is off to CNN. For the time being they have exonerated themselves by taking the right steps to correct a string of poorly planned and executed debate performances. How did they do it? By replacing Wolf Blitzer with Anderson Cooper, telling Larry King to stay home and engaging regular people via YouTube. Brilliant? It goes without saying that I'm a little more interested in this stuff than the average person but I've got to tell you that I thoroughly enjoyed this debate.
What I found to be so unexpected and refreshing was that most of the candidates excelled in this format. Those who knew the difference showed how much easier and natural it is to answer a real question rather than some dreamed up, insincere, over-thought concoction that we've come to mistake for reality. It's like the difference between exercise and actually running the marathon.
It most definitely has changed the debate process but these clever candidates proved that adaptation will be quick. In fact it may have lasted only through last night. There were a few insights that I found particularly interesting that were made possible in part by the YouTube format. For example, the question that has really made the rounds in the press is the one about making contacts in the first year in office, with the Leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Sen. Obama got the question and said, "I would, the notion that not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding light of this administration is ridiculous." For my taste this was a superb answer and in general this format seemed to build passion and intensity in Sen. Obama. Now on the other hand Sen. Clinton got the same question but answered in a much different way. She was measured and cautious, saying she did not want to be used by other countries for propaganda purposes. Frankly she sounded very similar to the current administrations policy.
So where this format seemed to help Sen. Obama differentiate himself from business-as-usual and the current administration, it did the opposite for Sen. Clinton.
Incidentally this seems to be a change of heart for Sen. Clinton who earlier in the year said, " you don't refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the President to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it's a sign of strength not weakness."
I believe that this format was exactly one of those uncomfortable situation Sen. Clinton was talking about. Where Sen. Obama seemed young and vibrant and invigorated by the YouTube format and answered from the heart, Sen. Clinton seemed old and mechanical and defaulted to the game plan. Her whole campaign is machine like as can be seen by their instant attempts to discredit Sen Obama calling him irresponsible and naive for an answer I suspect they now wish they had given. When a campaign reacts this quick you know you got to them and Obama did and they had no choice but to attack. The Clinton camp proved again to be too smart for their own good, looking too far out and not in the moment where they belong.
What I found to be so unexpected and refreshing was that most of the candidates excelled in this format. Those who knew the difference showed how much easier and natural it is to answer a real question rather than some dreamed up, insincere, over-thought concoction that we've come to mistake for reality. It's like the difference between exercise and actually running the marathon.
It most definitely has changed the debate process but these clever candidates proved that adaptation will be quick. In fact it may have lasted only through last night. There were a few insights that I found particularly interesting that were made possible in part by the YouTube format. For example, the question that has really made the rounds in the press is the one about making contacts in the first year in office, with the Leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Sen. Obama got the question and said, "I would, the notion that not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding light of this administration is ridiculous." For my taste this was a superb answer and in general this format seemed to build passion and intensity in Sen. Obama. Now on the other hand Sen. Clinton got the same question but answered in a much different way. She was measured and cautious, saying she did not want to be used by other countries for propaganda purposes. Frankly she sounded very similar to the current administrations policy.
So where this format seemed to help Sen. Obama differentiate himself from business-as-usual and the current administration, it did the opposite for Sen. Clinton.
Incidentally this seems to be a change of heart for Sen. Clinton who earlier in the year said, " you don't refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the President to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it's a sign of strength not weakness."
I believe that this format was exactly one of those uncomfortable situation Sen. Clinton was talking about. Where Sen. Obama seemed young and vibrant and invigorated by the YouTube format and answered from the heart, Sen. Clinton seemed old and mechanical and defaulted to the game plan. Her whole campaign is machine like as can be seen by their instant attempts to discredit Sen Obama calling him irresponsible and naive for an answer I suspect they now wish they had given. When a campaign reacts this quick you know you got to them and Obama did and they had no choice but to attack. The Clinton camp proved again to be too smart for their own good, looking too far out and not in the moment where they belong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)