Update: This post is not meant to be "divisive" or to "smear" candidates. Instead,it is to attempt to have a discussion on campaign tactics, which there are very few available at this point.
We are at an interesting point in the election. Senator Obama should win the caucus tomorrow in Wyoming and he has a slight advantage in Mississippi, where Senator Clinton is reduced to arguing that the State needs to elect a woman. Additionally, it seems that there is an eight delegate swing in favor of Senator Obama from adjusting the vote in Congressional Districts in California. He will also pick up vote in New York when the Empire state fixes the count where Senator Obama received 0% of the vote in NYC. Finally, the Obama campaign is working to pick up the Edwards delegates from John Edwards from Iowa. Though it is not set, Senator Obama will most likely win the caucus in Texas, diminishing not only Senator Clinton's win the in the primaries but from all of the vote from March 4th. Even though Senator Clinton won three states, she will have gained only three net delegates, lost ground from previous states, and will lose more ground this in the next four days.
What are their options on how they ought to run in their campaign?
Senator Clinton
(1) She could differentiate herself from Senator Obama on their positions and remain positive, which did not help her in February. Everyone knows that she is knowledgeable on policy but this does not mean that people want the Clinton presidency again.
(2) She could continue to offer the "Dream Ticket" line, as she did today, with her on top. This seems to ignore the delegate count and makes Senator Obama "wait his turn." I would argue that she is using this line because she will not win the vote in Wyoming and Mississippi. Further Senator Obama may not offer her what she needs against McCain against the fall (attack VP) and her recent comments on Senator's Obama experience undercuts the Dream Ticket (why select someone as VP shen they would not be ready for office if something were to happen).
Of course, Senator Obama would need to agree with the Dream Ticket and if he were consistent with his message, he would walk away from that option. Further, this "Dream Ticket" argument may not help her catch up on pledged delegates or Super Delegates.
(3) She could continue to attack him. Since it is very unlikely she will catch him in delegates, the goal of the attack would be to damage him in such a way that the Super Delegates could nothing but select Senator Clinton. The New Republic has more on this option and, according to this story, this does not bode well for the party. By the way, this may be why Senator Clinton launched the attack that she is ready to be Commander in Chief, Senator McCain is ready to be Commander on Chief, and why Senator Obama just delivered a speech. This explains the Kenneth Starr comments. This is also why before the vote in Ohio that the Clinton campaign accused Senator Obama of "political posturing" on NAFTA though it was in fact the Clinton Campaign that was guilty of this charge. You can read more here and here.
A variation is to force the Obama campaign to attack and then to say "He is attacking, running politics as usual," as a way to undercut his strength.
And for Senator Obama?
(1) He can continue "the math" argument which seems to be the least compelling and least inspiring message available. A slight variation is to use the "electibility" argument, which is better but still flat. Senator Obama is at his best when he tries to inspire individuals to help change the system. Of course, Washington may tire of this approach.
(2) He can attack and face Clinton on her terms, i.e. bring a gun to a knife fight. Yet, this means his New Politics cannot work and takes away any advantage he has over the Clintons. David Brook's comments in The New York Times offers an interesting glimpse into Obama's options as does Matt Cooper from the I. Scooter Libby fame. One good way to think about this is if you are going to elect someone who relies on Clinton's tactics, elect a Clinton.
(3) He can stand "above" the fight while his surrogates attack the Clintons. This of course needs to be done on relevant information: National Security, Foreign Experience, and the Clinton "Vetting" argument since Clinton has no Commander in Chief or Executive Experience, has no foreign affairs experience, and is not vetted since she has not released her tax returns for the past eight years and the Clintons will not release the documents from the Clinton library that Senator Clinton was involved with (Health Care, Pardons).
Of course, the Obama surrogates need to be smarter than Harvard Professor Samantha Power's "Monster Comment," which by the way seems to be a hit-job by the reporter with whom Powers spoke since Powers asked this to be off the record and the reporter did not or would not clarify the context of the Monster comment. But I digress.
What do I think?
Senator Clinton will try line number two on the Dream Clinton for a few days but this will not work past this weekend. In the six weeks between Mississippi, Senator Clinton goes for victory by attempting to destroy Senator Obama. All of her comments point to this. And, if the economy is bad, she will attempt to use this anxiety as well as to continue to attack (falsely) about experience.
Senator Obama will try to avoid the fight, while raising questions on foreign service, experience, and secrecy. If he attacks, he will lose. If his surrogates attack, he may stand a chance. If he argues that the Clintons are the bridge to the past and he the future then he may win. Winning a bog state may help though gaining 100 pf the 350 uncommitted Super Delegates may put this out of reach.
Senator McCain is laughing at all of this by the way: Let Clinton beat Obama on categories where McCain will be Clinton.
3 comments:
The entire post is an argument, of course. The argument hardly begins when you ask, "What do I think...?"
Harrogate entertains himself with the Power was off the record argument, he's seen it bandied about quite a bit today.
Whether she was off the record is not the point. Why, Harrogate thought Obama was about inspiring people to be better citizens, better souls, and blah and blah and blah. Something true is, if we didn't know she had said it, It would still be true that she said It.
Harrogate also likes this observation:
"One good way to think about this is if you are going to elect someone who relies on Clinton's tactics, elect a Clinton."
Yes. Of course. (a good way to think about that sentence is, it's a smear).
What is surprising here is that when people make such CLAIMS, people including Obama himself, they do not at all think they are participating in a disputable Narrative. Rather, they really do seem to believe that they are stating Facts. It's interesting. There is nothing "negative" about Obama or his supporters making such statements, no more than if one of them said Hey, the Earth moves about the Sun.
Since we will never agree on the Power comment, I will skip over it. But it is best that she resigned so this issue could be forgotten.
Ah, the Clinton "smear" as you say, which was not intended as a smear on my part since Senator Clinton refers to herself as a "fighter." This is what she calls herself in her own campaign speeches right? This is how she defines herself, correct?
As I said before, when candidates differentiate themselves this is not a negative attack; negative attacks involve manipulation of information. I have never claimed that only one side in the primary does not use it nor would I.
The purpose a campaign is to win and to win you must find the best strategy to gain votes AND that was the intent of the post. If you care to make on topic comments about that post in terms of strategy, please.
Nice one. A very well-written post on methods to attack anxiety.I came across a very good wesbite that has guides regarding anxiety attacks. Thought I might share it with you at www.attackanxiety.org.
Post a Comment