|
It's a boxing term for a right-handed boxer whose opponent is used to them throwing punches from the right switching to left-handed punches. Clinton makes her atrocious statements because she knows that Obama won't call her on most of them. I'm not advocating going negative, just calling her to task for one or two of her statements.
...and the Wednesday debate is the perfect opportunity. It'll be nationally televised, the press will be writing about it for days if not weeks, it's face to face, it doesn't allow Clinton any time to craft a response, and it's near enough to the end of the primary season that any impression it leaves will remain for the rest of the primary season.
A 9th-round haymaker, if you will.
We can assume that a question about the candidate's statements over the course of the primary and how those statements will effect their electibility in the general election will be asked. Without going negative, here's what I'd love to see Obama say...
(you'll forgive my lack of speechwriting experience...my goal is to provide basic content, not eloquence)
"It's been a long primary season. There's always going to be something you wished you'd worded better...something you wish you'd spent more time clarifying. Over the course of fourteen months, something's going to come out in a way that leaves it open to negative interpretation, regardless of how true you feel the message is. Obviously, I have some recent experience with that. (smile)
I believe that voters are smart and tolerant enough to understand that. If you give them a real message...if you tell them the truth...they'll see the value of that message and forgive the occasional awkwardness of its delivery.
What voters will not tolerate are lies. They've spent decades being lied to, and they're tired of it. Don't tell them that things are fine when their own experience tells them different. Don't tell them that you've tried to protect their jobs from being sent overseas when you've spent years supporting free trade agreements...and have your own chief campaign strategist trying to sell a free trade agreement to Columbia. Don't tell them that you were under sniper fire...and then repeat that lie three more times when their sons and daughters are dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The American people are smart enough to see what the issues really are and to forgive an imprecise word or two if they believe in the truth of the message. All they ask is your attention and your honesty. I feel that I've given them that."
That takes a little over a minute to say.
I think it accomplishes the following:
1) It explains the reality of the difficulty of always speaking perfectly without resorting to Clinton's "I say a million words a day".
2) It downplays "bittergate" in a mildly humorous way.
3) It states that voters are smart enough to evaluate campaign statements for themselves...defusing the "elitist" accusation.
4) It ties that intelligence to forgiving poor word choice.
5) It reinforces his earlier "voters have been ignored and given false hopes by politicians" statement and specifically directs the discussion to lies.
6) It clarifies the discussion, stating that voters will not tolerate lies.
7) It gives three specific examples of Clinton's own statements (no iffy interpretation or judgment calls) in increasing strength to both support his contention and draw a distinction between his poor word choices in the past and Clinton's intentional mistruths.
8) It reinforces the message that voters are capable of making good judgments and restates the difference between his past statements and hers.
Oh, and the volume should steadily increase through the third paragraph.
Clinton is so used to Obama being completely hands-off about anything that could be remotely considered "negative" that I don't believe she'll be able to respond...especially in a live event.
It's not "going negative", it's using a completely accurate of her own words and actions to draw a distinction.
An I off-base?
|