- I think it possibly is a brilliant political move-- of course the alleged plagiarism is not a big deal-- but thats not the point-- the point is that this meaningless story has dominated the news cycle now for a good two days and it puts Obama on the defensive- it takes away from the story about the demise of her campaign or Obama's momentum and makes him defend something that seems silly to have to defend.
- Also, if he is going to argue that words mean something and that he has the power to move people with his words, its worthwhile to ask whether or not they are truly his words-- which is what Hillary needs. She needs people to stand back and take a second look and say--well, even if we are prepared to vote for "just words" are we prepared to vote for "just words" that are not even his?
- Now, I don't think there is much validity in that argument, but perhaps some people will, and in any case, its a win for Hillary that we are talking about Obama and asking him to defend his speeches (what he is known for) instead of talking about her husband Bill going off the deep end and attacking a heckler and pro-lifers this weekend.
Now, post- Wisconsin and Hawaii, the 9th and 10th wins in a row for Obama, it may seem that my above points were wrong, but I don't believe that to be the case. Instead, it puts the strategy of the Clinton campaign into context. They are very well aware that their ship is sinking rapidly and in order to extricate themselves, they must find some way to fend off the final wave that will drown them. Putting Obama on the defensive is certainly the right move. Making him defend weaknesses or moments of intellectual laziness is the right move. Maybe it will make just enough people stop and question their vote for him. (Perhaps some truth of this is shown by the Wisconsin numbers where MSNBC's Chuck Todd has reported that Hillary eeked out a small margin of victory in voters who made up their minds on election day.)
The only thing that I will say was wrong about my analysis is that today, I would not use the word "brilliant" to describe the strategy. Instead I choose the adjective "good" or "right". This reflects my belief that the moves by the Clinton campaign were in the right direction, however, the charges have obviously not stuck to Obama and the term "brilliant" ought to be reserved for the move or charge that pierces the teflon nature of the Obama campaign.
5 comments:
Well your numbers are off a little bit so I'll post the link and just note that the tactic did not work, and may have even failed. I will further note that Obama won by a significantly larger margin than any poll had predicted.
http://tinyurl.com/2gduka
OK that link didn't go to the right page. The exit polls show that people who decided on election day or close to it went for Obama. Page 5 of the exit polls in the above link.
"The Teflon Nature of the Obama Campaign." I like that. It makes me all the more excited for the moment when paparazzi catch Obama snorting blow off of the asses of Amy Winehouse and Kate Moss in the Oval Office...Michelle is going to be sooooooooooooo pissed!
I have to disagree with the esteemed Mr. Burns on this one. These petty attacks are simply making her look like a desperate candidate who knows that she doesn't have much ammunition left.
I realize that the two candidates don't differ much over the issues, but clearly this campaign season has proven (at least so far) that personal attacks against Obama are not going to work. I hate to plagiarize James Carville, but Hillary needs to pull out the "it's the economy stupid" strategy. The subprime meltdown is battering the economy, particularly in Texas and Ohio. This is what people care about most right now (not Iraq or nationalized health care). While I certainly don't think Hillary's politics would be helpful to the economy (not surprising to anyone familiar with my economic political leanings), she needs to show that she cares about the economy and make this election about her experience, not about whether Obama borrowed some speech language.
Jon's point about the economy makes sense on its face, but I think Hillary's focus on the economy would ultimately fail as well. I'm no economist and do not pretend to be one, but I've read a little about her economic plan. The word that keeps appearing about her policy to freeze interest rates is "disaster." Once she makes it a campaign about that, I think Obama could wave around articles from the Financial Times and, I think, The Economist, to easily make the point that she would harm the economy that much more.
Post a Comment