politcs of the protagonist: how to help Hillary win

Hillary Clinton excels at nothing if not campaigning.

Right now, the other candidates are playing right into her hands. Attacking Hillary lets her play the hero in this election story.

The essence of every narrative is conflict. No media story would be complete without it. Sometimes it's human versus nature, or human versus self. But mostly, it's human versus human.

Remember: the protagonist always wins. You do NOT want to be the antagonist.

The story of inevitability is unkind to the front runner. In this story, the underdog is the protagonist. Rocky beats Apollo Creed. George Washington beats the British Empire. David beats Goliath. Hillary may whisper that she's Goliath to keep the lobbyists in her corner, but her campaign understands the media too well to ever proclaim it.

That's where the experience versus change narrative came from. Propaganda has evolved beyond "choose X now". Instead, we present people with two carefully defined choices: "X or Y". Think of the classic Wild West story. The villain's posse is evil but strong. The farmer is righteous but weak. Who do you side with? It's so hard to choose! Then the protagonist shows up and resolves the conflict by finding a third way! In comes the cowboy, who is strong AND good. In comes Hillary, who has the experience to bring change.

Hillary won that story just a little too easily. And now, with Hillary seeming like Goliath, the media is ready to look for a David.

Edwards has been dying to play David. Obama failed with his solution to experience versus change ("I have a different, better kind of experience to bring change") and now has no other choice but to play the role of David.

Do you think the Clinton campaign is stupid enough to play Goliath? I sure as hell don't. We all remember Howard Dean.

Here's how Hillary will win. The other seven candidates, along with the GOP, are the collective antagonist. That makes Hillary the hero. The huge army has to lose. The hoards of Persia will ultimately be stopped by Greece, in an epic battle that will go down in history.

The "boys" are playing into Hillary's underdog story just great. Hillary is playing the victim only so she can eventually overcome her attackers and win. You're not an underdog if you don't take some hits.

How does someone beat Hillary's planned narrative?

Edwards or Obama trying to be David is the worst idea. "It's because Obama is black" would only play out slightly better in America than "it's because Edwards is a southerner". "They're picking on the girl" has a way of appealing to both male-backwardness and female-empowerment. Hillary's "boys club" story might be pure strategy, but at least it is slightly palatable.

One of my favorite movies has always been the Godfather. In this masterpiece, the antagonist is always rival families like the Tataglias. But this antagonist is only there for context. The real conflict in that movie is not between the families, but within the family. There are a lot of deeper themes in the film, but the conflict is essentially "who should lead the family, and how"? The film teaches you that Sonny is too hot-headed and Fredo is too incompetent. Michael has to be the don. The film reminds you that the Tataglias are the real antagonist, while simultaneously driving the main conflict of Michael's rise over his brothers.

For Obama or Edwards to get the nomination, they need to keep one eye on the real antagonist: the GOP field of candidates. Yeah, that might mean calling Hillary out for the political strategy of "say as little as possible and be everyone's friend". But it also means showing strength against the GOP. In this story, Clinton is a secondary character. Obama or Edwards can be the hero, but they need to cut Clinton out of the picture and keep hitting the real villain. In this story, Clinton is just a secondary character obstructing the real hero's path.

But for Hillary to win, all they need to do is pile on. The group of masked ninjas will never beat Bruce Lee.

•  Hillary is obstructing the real hero

  That's not just part of the story of the Godfather. It's actually true.

  by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:28:59 AM PDT

  •  if all Hillary has to do is be a woman

    to win, then she was inevitable all along. Obama and hopefully Michelle in the early states will  expose Hillary for the shameless fraud she is.

    by nevadadem on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:33:08 AM PDT

    •  the pile on helps her. PUSHING her out is the key

      Yeah, they might have to confront Hillary. But it should only be to the extent that they push her out of the way, and fight the real villain.

      If they focus entirely on her, she looks like the hero.

      by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:37:25 AM PDT

    •  people usually get TR'd

      for calling one of our candidates a fraud, why are you any different? There's a line that you don't need to cross my friend.

      by rigso on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:29:22 PM PDT

•  The DLC is no hero of mine

  Where's that anvil?

  by voltayre on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:29:31 AM PDT

  •  the key is cutting her out of the story

    If Edwards and Obama look like they're attacking her, then she gets to be the hero.

    The hero is the person who pushes her out of the way, in order to fight the GOP.

    by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:31:50 AM PDT

    •  And Hillary is the one fighting the GOP.

      She's been doing it all along.

      Bill and Hillary have run 1 campaign for attorney general, 1 campaign for congress, 6 campaigns for governor, 2 campaigns for president and 2 campaigns for senator. And out of those 12 races, they have lost 2.  It's bizarre to me the degree to which her detractors are not willing to admit that maybe Bill and Hill know a few things about winning campaigns.

      by lorelynn on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:56:48 AM PDT

      •  gotta agree again

        She's selling herself as a fighter. She's fighting them on the right, and now she gets to fight them on her left too.

        by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:58:07 AM PDT

    •  No. The non attack strategy hasn't worked.

      They have to attack her to get any traction. She can't play the victim card too much more. Against the Gopers, yeah she can and should milk it because their attacks will look as absurd as they are, but in the primary she won't get away with it for too long, starting to wear thin already.

      No, I don't agree. They must attack, and it seems to be working, hence diaries like this.

      by doinaheckuvanutjob on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:11:55 PM PDT

      •  The attack does nothing by itself

        I don't think they should stop attacking. I think they need to remind people, while they hit Hillary, that they're only trying to push her out of the way for the REAL fight. It's complex. But they need to have one eye on Hillary, and one eye on Giuliani when they attack.

        by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:15:29 PM PDT

        •  Edwards is doing this now, IMHO

          Edwards is attacking Hillary by pointing out that her donors are the same as the republican donors.  The resulting message is clear, "Hillary won't fight the GOP as well as I can, because on many, many issues, she AGREES with them."

          by Easy B Oven on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:53:31 PM PDT

          •  I don't think the "double talk" argument

            Has been tied into this yet.

            But I agree. Hillary finds a way to say "me too" to every Democrat and some of the Republicans. Edwards is smart to call her on the double talk. But he needs to complete the argument: that she is not fit to take on Giuliani.

            by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:32:27 PM PDT

•  Excellent analysis

  I've been trying to express this concept myself; you've done a much better job than I did.

  by jay w on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:33:29 AM PDT

  •  thank you. I think missing this point will cost

    Obama or Edwards the nomination.

    by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:35:44 AM PDT

    •  It could.

      I have said many times in the past two days, remember Dean v Gephardt in Iowa.

      Not to mention, remember many campaigns in which John Kerry played the Vietnam hero card.  Heck, remember the 04 convention.  

      This is interesting.  Some people are hearing "oh, poor little old me," but I don't hear that - I hear, "let's fight back together!"  She got her boxing gloves and rallied young women at Wellesley.  Great!  It's not about feeling like a victim, it's about solidarity with someone who fights back.

      by daria g on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:09:32 PM PDT

      •  yeah, I think she's welcoming the hits

        so she can ultimately look even stronger. I don't think the "victim" thing is going to catch on, because she always hits back eventually.

        by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:10:58 PM PDT

        •  It's early.

          We shall see.  I am betting her team wanted a good moment to underscore just how historic this is for women.  They've got it, they won't need to do it again, and I await what they'll do the next news cycle, they've been good at driving it so far.

          by daria g on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:20:36 PM PDT

•  Exactly - - it's all about Hillary - -

  by constantly attacking her, forming a circular firing squad around her, they make her the focus point and shoot each other.  Let them examine every word and every facial tic and every fashion choice, and eventually people will just say, leave her alone, it's boring already.  That's what Bill taught Newt, Rush, Fox, etc.

  by Barry in MIA on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:40:11 AM PDT

•  Michael Shearer over at Salon

  has an article up.  He says that Hillary has prepared for this fight for her entire life, and we just need to wait and watch to see what she does next.

  My guess is she blows everyone out of the water.

  by DCDemocrat on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:50:09 AM PDT

  •  You and me and USA

    She'll blow all of us out of the water really good.

    by mgoltsman on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:39:08 PM PDT

•  It's the old boys club vs. Hillary.

  The sheer level of negativity is what turns her into the underdog. It's really bizarre, but the underdog is running 30 points ahead of the establishment. And in this scenario, being male is what makes you part of the establishment - as wounding as I know that is for my comrades here.

  by lorelynn on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:51:23 AM PDT

  •  i have to agree with you

    Hillary is happy to suck them into this frame. I would really like to see them reframe it, because I really do think that Hillary is getting in the way of our real hero, whoever that might be. I know you see this as a positive, though.

    by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:53:40 AM PDT

    •  how sure are you that your "real hero" exists?

      I don't mean to be rude, I'm honestly curious.  I agree with your diary although I am more a supporter of Hillary.

      You talk about "the real hero" but, meantime, the field has taken shape as what it is.  Do you think Edwards or Obama truly has it in him to "bust out" somehow in the next 3 months?  The busting out would have to be transformative.

      by Torta on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:34:12 PM PDT

      •  I think Barack and Edwards can accomplish more

        Hillary looks like our hero because the GOP keeps attacking her, and she keeps hitting back easy points by criticizing Bush.

        I think Obama and Edwards have failed to make the case to the electorate that they can really accomplish more than Hillary. Maybe it's because they've failed to show that they're promising anything substantially different. Or maybe it's because they've failed to show how they intend to get there, and so they look like they're over-promising.

        I genuinely think Edwards will do more about poverty, for example, and will be a better friend to Unions. But I don't think people believe that poverty can actually poll well in the general election. I think the moral clarity of the position, John's advocacy, the frustration with the GOP, and the evangelical vote could all translate into real progress here. But again, that case hasn't been presented en masse to the public.

        by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:43:37 PM PDT

•  is this really new

  The frontrunner is alwasy targeted by the rest of the pack, and then the best response is to point out that everybody is attacking you and keep the focus on yourself, even if it is somewhat negative.  It works better for a women frontrunner, but the basic dynamic is old as time. But frontrunners lose all the time despite this dynamic.

  by Marcion on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:52:47 AM PDT

  •  in the media, frontrunners don't lose. but

    they can get pushed out of the way.

    The story of Dean's collapse wasn't sold as Goliath getting slayed by David. It was sold as Fredo stepping aside for Michael.

    by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:56:57 AM PDT

•  Bruce Lee?

  :::rolls eyes:::

  by Terre on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 11:53:53 AM PDT

  •  It's a pretty funny image...and - hey!

    He dies (mysteriously) young.  No way...

    by oldpro on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:32:13 PM PDT

•  Yep: "Hillary v Them" and "Hillary v Bush" are

  the two themes her campaign will carry to victory unless one of "Them" can truly break from the pack and become her only real challenger.

  The dominant story from Tuesday's debate was how it was "Them against Hillary."  What got lost in that story was how each man within "Them" was therefore rendered more or less invisible.  

  And as frontrunner, Hillary (more than the others) kept going after Bush himself and the Republicans themselves.  The men of "Them" are kind of at a disadvantage there; they have to attack both Hillary Clinton in their own party and the Republicans.  Hillary can afford a more singular message.

  This race will only become a real contest if one of "Them" becomes a real challenger and the others fall away.  Until or unless that happens... it's Hillary with at least 35% of the nomination vote, and possibly as much as 45-50%.  

  Edwards sure is trying, gotta give him that.  Obama has the poll numbers and the base of support but has yet to really bring heat to the contest.  

  by Torta on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:05:38 PM PDT

  •  totally agree on "them"

    The challengers risk becoming an amorphous blob. Amorphous blobs can't be heroes.

    I maintain that the counter-strategy is to make Hillary irrelevant, as strange as it may seem for a frontrunner. "She's getting in the way of the real fight".

    by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:07:23 PM PDT

    •  The possibility more than exists that she cannot

      be made irrelevant. Hillary is already a hero to an awful lot of people. Unlike any other candidate, she is bringing new voters to the table. She leads in all demographic groups. Her big lead is due to her support among unmarried women - and that is a demographic that usually pays no attention. They may be invisible to the blogosphere (which is primarily male) but they're saying they're going to show up and vote. and if they do, we're going to have a historic election in more ways than one. If unmarried women join up and start becoming involved in progressive politics, it's going to completely alter our ability to get progressive changes made to this nation.

      by lorelynn on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:34:39 PM PDT

      •  And SUV is the most popular type of vehicle in US

        That does not make an AWD SUV in Florida or HRC as the Dem nominee any more of a logical proposition. It's just what the media is tasked with selling, and it sure as hell sells.

        by mgoltsman on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:43:12 PM PDT

•  Proving your point:

  the fact that the moment we all cheered the loudest that night, regardless of our relative choices (or tentative choices) among the Dems, is when Joe Biden whacked Ghouliani so memorably. It was reminiscent of the West Wing episode wherein President Bartlett had to debate his lightweight GOP opponent and, instead of playing it safe, absolutely started kicking his ass from the first question on -- provoking a stunned "Oh - my - God" from C.J. and a triumphant "Game on!" from Josh -- and turning the tide right there. Those bastards on the other side are on the ropes. All we need to do is hammer, hammer, hammer. America is ready to follow if we do. Hammer the Republicans, not each other, and let the primaries and caucuses sort out who's best able to keep doing it right through November '08.

  by bwintx on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:36:42 PM PDT

  •  Well, so far

    we seem to be following HRC in overwhelming numbers. And I have a bad feeling about where she will lead us.

    by mgoltsman on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:49:13 PM PDT

•  Don't agree

  This their attacking me because I am a women thing didn't work for Arrianna Huffington, and I don't think it works for Hillary.  It just makes her look like a crybaby.  The attacks aren't below the belt attaccks on her personal character, they are about issues that affect us all.  I think they should keep it up.  Playing nice guy to her is not working at all.

  by bucadibeppo on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:43:07 PM PDT

  •  i'm not saying they should play nice

    I'm saying she'll inevitably hit back, and look that much stronger for it. The pile-on makes her look strong and heroic.

    They should instead remind voters that pushing Hillary out of the way is a means to an end. That they can ultimately accomplish more, and she's getting in the way -- because of her ties to lobbyists, because of her lack of moral clarity, because of her high negatives, or so on.

    They need to act like Hillary is Fredo or Sonny, basically. And that she needs to get out of the way for the real leader.

    by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:46:36 PM PDT

    •  Well reminding them about her ties to corporate

      lobbiest can be best done in the debates, which is what they did.  I don't think the pile helps her.  It didn't help Dean.

      by bucadibeppo on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:50:08 PM PDT

      •  Dean wasn't scoring easy points on the GOP

        Everyone, from Kerry to Edwards to Gephardt, all felt like they could better compete with Bush and made that case.

        Bush was the antagonist. They piled on Bush, and told Dean to get out of the way lest he screw it all up.

        At least, that's the story that was laid out in the media.

        by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:07:11 PM PDT

        •  Dean led because he was leading

          He did it by saying what the others were too timid to say, that Emperor Bush and His Merry Court of Reporters had in fact no clothes.

          That's what got him the lead. He attacked the Dem Party's quizzling role in regards to the Iraq war. He established the narrative the others had to eventually run on that the Iraq war was a failed Bush policy.

          The reason he led was because he wasn't afraid to lead on the issues, it wasn't about attacks or non attacks, but to wrestle the lead back from Dean, the others certainly attacked. They jumped all over his statement about needing to court the South, that it was racist and he didn't know the South, that was one of the first blows they landed.

          Attacks work. I don't buy your premise, except for the part about ultimately taking on the Rethugs and leaving Hillary in the background does make sense, but only in the long run. In the short run, they need to knock her down and she needs to knock them down or else the race will remain as was, logjammed with the same poll numbers. Every campaign's looking to the early Jan. primary and seeing the numbers have to start changing, tactics have to change.

          by doinaheckuvanutjob on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:24:36 PM PDT

          •  but he attacked a target that rallied the base

            I'm not saying he didn't lead. But at the end of the day, that's what makes attacks on Bush different from attacks on Hillary.

            Attacks on Hillary actually rally a segment of the base in her favor.

            I think people who want to beat Hillary need to walk a thin line... they want to knock her over, but in a way that's ultimately concerned with going at Giuliani. They can't look like they're knocking her over just to knock her over. They shouldn't treat her like a villain so much as an obstacle to a villain.

            I know it's a little nuanced, and I can't really explain how this difference would translate into practice. But, in an ideal narrative, the media reports that Edwards/Obama is showing why Hillary can't fight Giuliani.

            by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:30:13 PM PDT

•  I'd have agreed with you

  before I saw her defense.  If she had played it stoic and courageous, that'd be one thing.  Portraying 'strength' (hawkishness, stubbornness) is Clinton's strategy -- I think playing the pathetic victim now could very well knock the base out of what image she's built.

  by Junior Bug on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 12:48:08 PM PDT

•  I'm not recommending this diary because

  I'm for Hillary and you're spot on. Great diary, though. ;)

  by Hairy Legs on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:22:48 PM PDT

•  Very interesting analysis

  It might seem terribly shallow to judge who will win the nomination based on whose script will make a better movie, but it's the reality. Too many people will buy into whatever media will sell them and media will be selling a script. After all, they don't REALLY care whom to slime up in the general.

  It seems like a very smart approach to start running against Republicans instead of against Hillary. It would translate into running against other Democrats simply by virtue of running against Republicans better than them. That is the intelligent approach. But of course there is a catch - it won't work at all.

  You see, the way I see it Edwards has been running against Rethugs better than the rest of the field (except maybe Kusinich and Papa Smurf) for at least a year. And all it got him is a big fat zero. If a tree falls in the forest and MSM does not cover it, then nobody will know that Edwards has been taking politically bold, practical and intelligent stance on just about every issue for the past year and then some.

  The media is not interesetd in promoting the best Democratic candidate, and so running against Republicans will not gain any traction. They are, however, interested in covering the Democratic squabbling and that will get some play. So, unfortunately, the only way for Edwards to bring his ideas to voters' attention and to draw stark differences between himself and HRC is to engage in that squabbling. Sure, Hillary will deflect most of that with her skill, money and spin team - but something might stick, and that's the ONLY thing that might. Like it or not, the only way for Edwards to make any progress is to pile on Hillary. That's what will get media play, and you go fishing where the fish are.

  I think if Edwards starts answering any question (and they will all aim to pit him against HRC) by attacking Romney and Mussolini, those quotes simply won't get play. He's been doing that for a year and look how far it's got him. All the media will do if Edwards won't bite is go back to calling Hillary inevitable. That won't do him any good.

  by mgoltsman on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 01:35:45 PM PDT

  •  I think the media has narratives ready

    for everything. Every guilty person who is accused, they're already setting up the cathartic moment that they get got. Every missing person sets up someone ready to get found. Covering the actual issues doesn't make a good story in of itself, because the conflict is not clear. The best the media can do with conflicts in policy is "Republicans say" and "Democrats say".

    I see the conundrum that Edwards has. I agree with you -- his attacks on Bush haven't played well, because Hillary is the front runner. At least he's now getting some media attention, but it's more in the negative -- he's part of the antagonist group.

    This isn't an either or thing. I think he NEEDS to keep hitting Hillary, but do the simultaneous and difficult job of hitting Giuliani.

    He needs to run against both of them at the same time. He can't hit Giuliani unless he pushes Hillary out of the way. And he can't beat Hillary unless he looks like he's focused on Giuliani. I just hope someone in the campaign is smart enough to craft a statement or message that can hit both.

    by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:14:07 PM PDT

    •  Guiliani? Puhhleease!

      This isn't an either or thing. I think he NEEDS to keep hitting Hillary, but do the simultaneous and difficult job of hitting Giuliani.

      It's not a difficult job to hit Guiliani. Joe Biden can beat up Guiliani with one hand tied behind his back. Dennis Kusinich can stand up to Guiliani and not surrender his lunch money more than 50% of the time.

      Guiliani is where he is because the media put him there. If the level of scrutiny applied to Edwards' haircut were applied to Guiliani's anything, he'd be in jail, not running for president.

      I do agree that Edwards must not get so tied up in fighting HRC that he forgets to keep hitting Rethugs, but I trust him to do that. Other than that, I think he's making all the right steps. We'll see if that's enough. All things that are truly good and necessary are accomplished against overwhelming odds and are never a sure thing. Edwards' campaign against HRC and Faux Noose is one of those things, now that Gore chose to forsake the USA for the benefit of the World.

      by mgoltsman on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:28:46 PM PDT

      •  it's easy to hit Giuliani. but at the same time?

        That's the challenge. Walk and chew bubble gum. Walk through Hillary and chew up Giuliani.

        If they just try to attack Giuliani, they get ignored.
        If they just try to walk through Hillary, she will try to make them look petty and look strong.

        Here's an idea of what I'm talking about:

        "Hillary, if you won't stand up to the lobbyists who want to stop universal health care, then how can we expect you to stand up to Rudy Giuliani?"

        (Not my best piece of work, but that kind of idea.)

        by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:35:57 PM PDT

        •  Umm, I don't think it has to be the same sentence

          What you are trying to say - I think - is that HRC should be attacked as unable to further the Democratic cause and to stand up to Rethugs in the race and in Congress if she wins.

          I don't see how that is too different than pointing out that she supports some of the Rethug causes (Iran) and is too chummy with the corrupt parts of the government (lobbyists are real people).

          Particularly because Biden (Biden!) just decked Guiliani in passing without even trying. I think it's hard to show that Hillary can't stand up to Guiliani. One thing I am NOT worried about is Hillary beating any of Rethugs in anything that is remotely a fair fight. She won't just beat Guiliani, she'll make him wet his pants onstage.

          The problem is that it's not Guiliani she has to beat. It's the media and various swiftboaters that will work in his name but without his explicit blessing. And the reason she can't stand up to them is because she's too chummy with most of them. That needs to be pointed out - and that's essentially what happened in the last debate (save for Richardson's ass-kissing moment), but it will end up playing in the media like "piling on the girl" anyhow.

          by mgoltsman on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 02:55:42 PM PDT

          •  yeah you nailed it. i can't always say it easily

            but Obama just did it, IMO:

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:27:59 PM PDT

•  Interesting theory...

  I'm not sure though the narrative you've chosen is correct though. My take is that since Edwards is driving the democratic platform debate, and he's a former trial lawyer who knows how to win, he's essentially made America into a large courtroom and is putting the system and it's players on trial. The American people are the jury and the client he defends.

  He's essentially turned Hillary, because of her connection to big corp & lobbyists, into a witness for the prosecution, as a rep of an essentially corrupt govt. His job therefore is to dent her credibility. Which he did.

  Now we just have to wait for additional evidence. It doesn't hurt his case to note that every week or seems like, Clinton has a scandal on the back burner.

  by cosbo on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 05:35:57 PM PDT

  •  I'm not sure the media has picked up

    Edwards's narrative. I've certainly bought into it. But I don't buy narratives -- I buy policies and principles.

    Edwards has had a hard time getting his narrative -- the people against the privileged -- getting fully articulated in the media. They ignore him, usually. Otherwise, they never seem to mention that he sees Hillary as part of the problem.

    Even in the past couple of days, they've only seemed to mention Hillary stumbling... not so much how Edwards called her on it.

    I think Edwards needs to keep doing what he's doing -- but he needs to complete the argument. While he criticizes Hillary, he needs to -- in the same breath -- explain why he should be the one to take on Giuliani.

    by danthrax on Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 06:30:51 PM PDT