|
The candidates know which side they've got, and know they need to play them for all they're worth.
Obama has youth and the "Outside Washington" mantle. His campaign highlights change and all things "new" -- new ideas, new ways of doing business, new coalitions, new voters involved in the process. To many, he's a breath of fresh air, inspiring, hopeful.
Clinton can't compete on that ground. She has to play "experience." Her campaign highlights the quality of being solid, trustworthy, even predictable. To many, she represents change from BushCo, but with an understanding of how things get done.
Now their downsides...
For Clinton, the downside of experience is about being "old" -- the "old, failed politics of the past," "business as usual," The Establishment, the dynasty element of Bush/Clinton, the baggage decades of political life brings.
For Obama, the downside of freshness is about being "green" -- inexperienced, untested, lightweight, unprepared.
Naturally, they are going to play their opponent's downside for all it's worth, and they've both been doing that.
Now about the McCain "Endorsement." What she said, of course, is that McCain will bring a lifetime of experience, she will bring a lifetime of experience, and Obama will bring a speech. (Or, you'll have to ask him what he brings, something to that effect.) A pretty stunning statement. My immediate thought was how she'll walk it back, because at some point she will HAVE to -- whether she gets the nom, he gets the nom, or they share a ticket.
But even though it's bold -- perhaps to the point of audacious -- I don't think it "gives the Republicans" anything, as is being claimed here. It surely has dawned on the RNC already that this is how they'd go after Obama -- on experience.
Some say it makes an ad for them. They'd run an ad with HRC saying Obama doesn't have experience? Who's that going to make look bad? Hillary Clinton! For those who want "experience" (in Washington), McCain is already way ahead of Obama (and Clinton, for that matter) and everybody knows that. This was obvious to begin with.
Does her voice give it more importance? I don't think so -- certainly not if she loses the nomination. She'd be marginalized at that point. I think they'd rather run ads with military brass saying such things.
So as a spectator in all this, I don't think it's as germane to the general election as others seem to fear. I think it's about the primary only (and I've seen and heard worse things in primaries!) and time will tell whether it works to her advantage or backfires.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
