Dear Sen. Obama,
I applaud the fact that you took the opportunity at the CNN debate of Jan. 22 and on Good Morning America, as aired on the same day, to call the Clintons on their volley of lies. (Note: I will henceforth refer to Hillary as "The Clintons" since there are two candidates on that side.)
However, I don't think it is a good idea to insert any of this in a set of prepared remarks, as those made for your speech on Recent Economic Developments.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CGC7v
In that speech, you rightly call Clinton on the fact that she copied aspects of your economic stimulus package --just as she has attempted to plagiarize countless aspects of your campaign--, that she triangulated by condemning a bankruptcy bill she voted for, and that she flip-flopped on the merits of NAFTA.However, this is not the appropriate context for such observations. Criticisms of the opposing campaign properly belong in statements to the press and debates or in remarks by your surrogates - not in formal policy messages to voters, particularly on the anxiety-producing subject of the economy at a time of brewing crisis.
Remember: the voters have to come hear YOU - not a debate. To be sure, you can answer questions about the Clinton campaign they may ask later on, but the opposition should not be part of your introduction to an audience. Do NOT let the Clintons get under your skin. Do not build a Clinton theme wall into your speeches, where it can grow into overhanging moss, casting its rolling, spidery mess over the cheers and joy of your campaign. Do not let those two narcissists creep into the texts of your stump speeches, the hallways of your rallies, the faces of enthusiastic voters. Vanquish the Clinton shadow when you are on your own.
You are clearly and rightfully very angry with them for their lies and manipulation, their breathtaking addiction to fairy tales - which they spin all too well, not you - but do not let the voters see that in your conversations with them. You are distressed (as we all are) but if you overdo the rebuttals, you will lose your focus - something unusual in such a visionary as you. Here is a reality check; do not lose sight of the final goal.
These written remarks are a disappointment coming from you. They make you look like a regular politician, injecting "mud" into policy. You are clear in describing the economic situation but are vague in enumerating your SPECIFIC remedies. Instead of taking three paragraphs to carefully outline numbers and allocations and beneficiaries, you have used up that same amount of space to debunk your opponent without explaining to us more specifically why you are the best steward of our economy. We want what is INSIDE the package - not a pronunciation on who wrapped it first. It would be naive to not respond to the Clintons, and you rightly have. However, after last night's food fight, the public needs time to recover, and so do you.
You are attempting to fight a war on two flanks, but as Hitler's example shows (I apologize for the use of Hitler in this example, but I am describing a military strategy), you cannot expect to conquer east and west, when east and west are joined as allies. You therefore need TARGETED attacks. An army of two is larger than an army of one, so you will never match the Clintons in brute force. Your only option, then, is to play the tactician. Use your weaponry effectively but sparingly. I was happy to hear Tom Daschle quoted as saying that President Clinton's volley of lies (the hysterical rantings of a narcissist whose chief ambition is not to get his wife elected but to defend his own legacy) was not presidential behavior. That is good. Let Daschle or Plouffe or others do most of the talking for you on that.
The Clintons can make anyone’s life miserable. However, when telling voters how an Obama presidency can improve THEIR lives, do not mention your own.
Comments are closed for this post.
