Or getting good advice and not listening. One or the other. Because she made two really serious strategic mistakes in this evening's televised "debate" and if she continues to do that she'll pay for them big time in the end. IMHO.
She made them both right off the mark by digging in to Obama on his health care plan. By doing that she tacitly acknowledged Obama as the front runner - or, at the very least, her principle opponent - and guaranteed him more than an equal share of time for the remainder of the session. Going first, she'd have been better off if she'd simply described her own proposal clearly and directly and forced the others to run from behind by attacking her. And she should, as far as possible, force her now three opponents to share time equally. Doing so would diminish the appeal of her strongest opponents and emphasize the weakness of the others.
And all four of them should decline to answer situational questions that come without context - hypotheticals, in lawyers' jargon - by simply saying "I don't intend to get myself into that situation." Period. A "ticking bomb" question and a question about attacking terrorists in Pakistan without the Pakistani government's cooperation fell into that category. A third, having to do with imagined difficulties in withdrawing from Iraq, Edwards nailed perfectly by saying he would listen to the the generals' advice directly but policy decisions would be made by him, not them.
There may have been more but I didn't stick with the show until the end. There is only so much of that blabber I can take in a given evening and I had watched part of the Republicans' fearfest already. Enough is enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment