Should Barack Obama respond to Hillary Clinton's momentum by going negative or more pointed?
I think it will be tough because when it comes to a high standard of debate, despite what you think of his policy positions, he has done it well. In fact, as I have said on the show many times, I believe that he and Mike Huckabee brought a sense of civility to the debate this year. I believe that Hillary is inviting him to play in her murky world of platitudes one day, and unreasonable debate and criticism the next.
This is a defining moment for Obama as he wanders onto the Clinton's favorite ground of say anything you want today because people won't remember what you said yesterday. GS
Friday, March 7, 2008
Should Obama go negative?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
No Obama should not stoop to the level of the Clinton's. He should keep the track that he is on and keep telling us what he sees as this countries future. I am a registered Republican and I am supporting him for President I only hope I get a chance to vote for him in November. I truly believe if the primaries were open, that Obama would attrach a huge Republican following. Also, Todd Platts never ran a negative campaign so he proves that it works.
No, because that's not who he is.
The cynical part of me located in the deep recesses of my brain almost wishes Senator Clinton and the 'Clintonistas' pull a fast one and weasel their way into the nomination. Blomburg could then bankroll Barack Obama as a third party, independent candidate.
Then we'd see some fireworks wouldn't we? For the first time in my life we'd actually have a third party candidate as a true force in American politics.
I have been an Obama supporter for a while and I'd love to see an independent candidate stick it to the corrupted Republicrats and their cozy Country Club.
In some sense, I wish that Obama would fire back at the comments that Clinton has said about him and his ablites to become the next President. But i agree with the people who have posted comments before me. I do not think that it is in Obama's best intrests to retaliate back at Clinton's comments. He is says he is a man of change, so then he should stand strong here, and make a difference in a way that other candiates have not.
Senior at QHST
I guess it depends on what you call "going negative" means.
Some things such as the Drug Use implications, the Hussein references are in my mind truly negative wheras the 3'Oclock ad was just pointing out the experience vs inexperience thing that Hillary has been saying all along.
Now if Obama started running adds saying do you want 4 More Years of a Clinton, then some might call that negative but it is central to his issue of CHANGE.
So, depends in my mind on what you call negative.
Surprisingly I think the Primaries so far have been tame no matter what others might be saying. I expect the general election to become really nasty, not necessarily by the candidates themselves but all the outside interest groups. We have seen just a little of this already in people or groups speaking on behalf of their respective candidate(s).
Those are the groups that I wish would disappear from the face of politics. It encompases those hidden support organizations, hacker attack bloggers, and a great majority of the afternoon and evening talk shows as well.
Post a Comment