Edwards can attack Hillary directly and Obama can attack her obliquely with little or no comment but when Hillary attacks Obama - he whines and attacks her indirectly; then, he is called presidential for his efforts.
Something is screwy.
Was it a mistake to attack Obama? Emphatically not. Clumsily executed, perhaps, but overall good strategy.
Why?? Because it shows Obama's weak response when attacked. He retreats into a feel good, preacher like sermon that studiously avoides dealing with the issues.
C'mon Barack: stand up - when you are confronting people who really want you to lose, you have to fight them directly. You cannot retreat into a fantasy world of make believe where you control all the issues and can repeat your feel good mantras.
Debating or negotiating in that manner guarantees that you will lose, unless you have a superior force to back you up. That in turn will mean that if Obama becomes President, he stands a larger chance of creating a war as a result of a weak debating posture than a President who will stand up and argue face to face.
Here's an indirect attack: "If other folks want to engage in those kinds of small-time tactics then that's their prerogative, but that's not what we're going to focus on." Quoted by Perry Bacon here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/05/clinton_campaign_volunteer_out.html
If you try either with a Giuliani, a Romney or any other Rep, they will eat you alive.
And, if you try it with a well connected defense contractor or a terrorist state, God help us.
Conclusion - don't let Obama get away with indirect attacks and /or retreat into his own LaLa land of feel good rhetoric. The country cannot afford it.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Monday, December 3, 2007
Iowa Dead Heat?
Iowa Dead Heat?
News accounts show a dead heat in Iowa between Obama, Clinton and Edwards.
Maybe it is time to test a negative attack strategy as a rehearsal for the national campaign. The overall strategy seems vaild at this point - still no doubt that Hillary will have the nomination [based on polls that show Dems give her best shot at the eventual Rep as seen in the Wall Street Journal
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hrAS9avYFvoccwNDiDFyW8E0_L1wD8TA1M4O0
A test could validate tactics with a small sample. Maybe poll a focus group in a controlled situation as they enter a room before a negative attack, then demonstrate some negative attacks.Then, poll again after the negative attack to calculate results.
Need at least 100 people and even then the probabilities will be hard to project, so maybe the idea is too lame. But maybe it is worth a shot.
Calling on the campaign gurus to look at it.
PPS: Seems that Obama is complaining about Hillary's negative campaigning in Iowa.
Good.
News accounts show a dead heat in Iowa between Obama, Clinton and Edwards.
Maybe it is time to test a negative attack strategy as a rehearsal for the national campaign. The overall strategy seems vaild at this point - still no doubt that Hillary will have the nomination [based on polls that show Dems give her best shot at the eventual Rep as seen in the Wall Street Journal
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hrAS9avYFvoccwNDiDFyW8E0_L1wD8TA1M4O0
A test could validate tactics with a small sample. Maybe poll a focus group in a controlled situation as they enter a room before a negative attack, then demonstrate some negative attacks.Then, poll again after the negative attack to calculate results.
Need at least 100 people and even then the probabilities will be hard to project, so maybe the idea is too lame. But maybe it is worth a shot.
Calling on the campaign gurus to look at it.
PPS: Seems that Obama is complaining about Hillary's negative campaigning in Iowa.
Good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
