Dear Obama Campaign --> It’s Clintonomics vs Bush Trickle-Down.

[thecentristword]

Last edited Wed Jul 18, 2012, 03:42 PM - Edit history (1)

The Obama campaign is enjoying a ten-day run of controlling the political conversation. The ‘Bain Argument’ is arguably the first issue the Obama team has been able to clearly articulate (while not confusing the ADD media).

However, they must now begin to look part the ‘candidate definition’ phase of the campaign and move on to what is going to be the major theme of the election, the economy.

In President Obama’s stump speech over the past several weeks, he has been trying to refine his economic message. To date, nothing has really stuck. It is too long, confusing and loses even tuned in voters after about 5 minute. He should actually fire the consultant that suggest he use phrases like ‘rich paying their fair share’ and ‘fair’ in general. This ‘fairness’ argument is weak and should be abandoned immediately. Americans want equality and equal access – not some imposed fairness (life isn’t fair btw).

To read more (TAX POLICY, FEDERAL DEBT and REGULATION AND PRIVATIZATION comparison, graphs and charts) - go here -> http://thecentristword.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/its-clintonomics-vs-bush-trickle-down-stupid/

Do you think "Clintonomics vs Bush Trickle-Down" is a good way to describe the choice President Obama is trying to frame?

1 vote, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	YES - This slogan captures what Obama is trying to say
	1 (100%)
	NO - This slogan does not capture what Obama is trying to say
	0 (0%)
	It should be something else
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Wounded Bear]

1. Referring to Clinton is a bad idea IMHO...

Too many negatives for RWers. Could motivate them to come out and vote.

So I voted "No" but I agree that it needs to be something else.