David Broder's latest republished to the Spokesman-Review editorial was truly revealing. McCain regrets all the negative campaigning. But on the Spokesman-Reviews blogs, such as A Matter of Opinion, McCain unveils a new ad that ostensibly attacks Obama over his tire guages that lead to energy independence, but the ad itself according to the actual date, that of 1990, involves a Bush energy conservation policy inclusive of inflating your tires. He may in personal conversation regret his negative campaigning. But I can think of one reason why, and has nothing to do with what Broder chose to make public: McCain's ads are as clumsy as his speech. They aren't put together well, tend to attack the wrong people, and can easily be misinterpreted. McCain should regret the sort of campaign team he has working for him. Wonder if they worked for Senator Kerry in 2004.
So Broder takes note of the fact that technically, Obama turned down 10 townhall meetings before carefully screened audiences. Essentially borrowing from GW's penchant to talk to no one who has hard questions for him. A "friendly audience" and to who's advantage? A smart man who recalls GW's record before any townhall meeting would greet with caution a repeat of such closed meetings (closed to the public that is) where only those preferred individuals could get in, ask maybe a soft ball question or two and generally engage in adoring adulations of their favored candidate... That to me would be a real bust. And why Broder chose not to probe, made his editorial a real bust. Obama was prepared to agree to two of them. McCain didn't like that. And since that time, whether Broder wishes to admit to it or not in so many words; his editorial none the less did. Because Obama wouldn't play by McCain's rules, McCain threw a tantrum and childishly lashed out.
Seems to me that McCain is the one in control of his own campaign. If he didn't want such childish and clumsy ads, he wouldn't have allowed them to be aired. If he wanted a campaign where he once said that he was all for sending a positive campaign and respecting his opponent, then he should have stuck to his original principles instead of flip flopping. Ultimately, Broder's problem isn't even with Obama, but with McCain.
So Broder takes note of the fact that technically, Obama turned down 10 townhall meetings before carefully screened audiences. Essentially borrowing from GW's penchant to talk to no one who has hard questions for him. A "friendly audience" and to who's advantage? A smart man who recalls GW's record before any townhall meeting would greet with caution a repeat of such closed meetings (closed to the public that is) where only those preferred individuals could get in, ask maybe a soft ball question or two and generally engage in adoring adulations of their favored candidate... That to me would be a real bust. And why Broder chose not to probe, made his editorial a real bust. Obama was prepared to agree to two of them. McCain didn't like that. And since that time, whether Broder wishes to admit to it or not in so many words; his editorial none the less did. Because Obama wouldn't play by McCain's rules, McCain threw a tantrum and childishly lashed out.
Seems to me that McCain is the one in control of his own campaign. If he didn't want such childish and clumsy ads, he wouldn't have allowed them to be aired. If he wanted a campaign where he once said that he was all for sending a positive campaign and respecting his opponent, then he should have stuck to his original principles instead of flip flopping. Ultimately, Broder's problem isn't even with Obama, but with McCain.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment