Rachel was right...
I know.
Anyway - the thing she is right about this time is how Senator Obama should respond to Senator Clinton's behavior.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Hillary campaigns like a Republican. The Clinton's have spent years learning how to "win" elections the Republican way. They raise doubts, they imply things that are not true, they project their own shortcomings on others, they play the victim while bullying others, and they even try to scare us in to voting for her. The 3:00 AM ad made me very angry. And I posted my response here.
I started writing a post in my head about how Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are right - Hillary is a bitch and how Obama should strike back hard and fast.
Rachel said he shouldn't - that he would just be stooping to their level.
I vehemently disagreed with her. I felt he should raise every little thing that the Republicans are going to raise from Whitewater to Vince Foster to Monica - her White House experience? She couldn't even keep an eye on her husband in the White House. Foreign policy? Why yes, she did drink tea with world leaders, or at least with their wives. She was wrong on Iraq and many other things and...
And I was wrong. Rachel is right. A big part of why we are supporting him is because he is different - he is a refreshing change, and to quote a talking head I heard on CNN, he has so far run a "gentleman's campaign."
I sincerely believe that Hillary won in Ohio due to slimy, dishonest, devious tactics. She should wear one of those wristbands you can buy at The Onion site that say "Cheat To Win."
What about Texas? Well, despite what you've heard on the news - she didn't win Texas. She won the primary, but lost the caucus by a larger margin and the latest results indicate Obama actually got more delegates out of Texas than she did.
But the thing is, she can't win. Mathematically, Obama's lead is insurmountable. Even if she were to win the rest of the primaries, she won't surpass Obama's delegate total. She can't win, she can only drag Obama down and hope that some back room deal will give her the nomination.
And if that happens, I am voting for Nader again.
Rachel says if I do that, I might as well vote for McCain. And she's (I don't even need to say probably) right about that too.
Obama has held and continues to hold the moral high ground in this campaign. It's brought him this far and it will take him the rest of the way. Or maybe it won't.
But if it does...well, if it does, I can be optimistic about our nation's future again.
Anyway - the thing she is right about this time is how Senator Obama should respond to Senator Clinton's behavior.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Hillary campaigns like a Republican. The Clinton's have spent years learning how to "win" elections the Republican way. They raise doubts, they imply things that are not true, they project their own shortcomings on others, they play the victim while bullying others, and they even try to scare us in to voting for her. The 3:00 AM ad made me very angry. And I posted my response here.
I started writing a post in my head about how Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are right - Hillary is a bitch and how Obama should strike back hard and fast.
Rachel said he shouldn't - that he would just be stooping to their level.
I vehemently disagreed with her. I felt he should raise every little thing that the Republicans are going to raise from Whitewater to Vince Foster to Monica - her White House experience? She couldn't even keep an eye on her husband in the White House. Foreign policy? Why yes, she did drink tea with world leaders, or at least with their wives. She was wrong on Iraq and many other things and...
And I was wrong. Rachel is right. A big part of why we are supporting him is because he is different - he is a refreshing change, and to quote a talking head I heard on CNN, he has so far run a "gentleman's campaign."
I sincerely believe that Hillary won in Ohio due to slimy, dishonest, devious tactics. She should wear one of those wristbands you can buy at The Onion site that say "Cheat To Win."
What about Texas? Well, despite what you've heard on the news - she didn't win Texas. She won the primary, but lost the caucus by a larger margin and the latest results indicate Obama actually got more delegates out of Texas than she did.
But the thing is, she can't win. Mathematically, Obama's lead is insurmountable. Even if she were to win the rest of the primaries, she won't surpass Obama's delegate total. She can't win, she can only drag Obama down and hope that some back room deal will give her the nomination.
And if that happens, I am voting for Nader again.
Rachel says if I do that, I might as well vote for McCain. And she's (I don't even need to say probably) right about that too.
Obama has held and continues to hold the moral high ground in this campaign. It's brought him this far and it will take him the rest of the way. Or maybe it won't.
But if it does...well, if it does, I can be optimistic about our nation's future again.
posted by Eric Soderstrom at 9:58 PM
2 Comments:
There's got to be a line that Obama can draw on showing his strength/capacity to not back down in a fight, and also to run a gentleman's campaign.
if he wins the campaign by stooping to a lower level, then I think he loses his capacity to bring the country together come January 09. It is the person who takes the high ground, with strength (witness MLK/JFK/Gandhi/Mandela) who is truly capable of bringing about quantum change in how people act and what they believe. There have been tens of thousands of politicians who have won, but at what cost to their effectiveness.
As an aside, is it possible for you to be engaged in an election and not be pissed at the opposing candidate? Just food for thought...
I think he has enough of a lead at this point where he can take the high ground and still win the nomination, but he has to be careful - people may start believing Hillary if Obama does not repond to the attacks & that could help McCain.
-Joe
Post a Comment
<< Home