This is a weak ad. If this is the strongest Clinton can attack with, it's no wonder she's bleeding staffers, supporters and cash.
If you're going to attack, ridicule harshly. She did her paper on Alinsky after all, so she knows what works best on her opponents having practiced the Rules For Radicals for years.* This comes across more like a finger waggling while claiming, "I wanna fight on TV with you. Why won't you let me?"
Clinton needs to finally out the answers to those long-standing questions we all have for her:
- Since this election holds such personal value to you (as evidenced in many places, most prominent of which being on the eve of the New Hampshire primary in early January,) please explain your personal reasons as to why your forgave Bill after the Ken Starr report went public, and please describe what example you think that sets for women in prominent, public roles?
- Yes or No only: Was it a mistake that you voted in favor to authorize the Iraq War? What have you learned from this vote regarding (based upon your own reasons for voting to authorize military action) your "offering [to] President Bush 'the benefit of the doubt'"?
- Though AFSCME endorses you, is your affiliation with the Wal-Mart Board a direct hypocrisy to your stance on pursuing Union rights for workers? If so, will you, as President, encourage those large companies that are known to have reservations against union organizing for workers to allow AFSCME, SEIU and AFL-CIO to work with any such opposing company to ensure workers' rights?
- What has your direct affiliation (i.e.: shareholding and consultation status) with several HMO companies specifically provided you so you can successfully progress and implement a realized Universal Health Care System to our nation's citizenry?
These questions should have been answered from the onset of her announcement to seek the DNC Nomination for President by Senator Clinton. Instead of hitting these uncertainties head-on, she has and will continue to receive harsh skepticism and passive doubt. Her age, gender, party and specific family affiliations mean jack-squat in regards to her capabilities to perform the duties of President of the United States. On this I'm sure we can all agree. Being the first to attack means you need solid footing and a clear understanding of both your and your opponent's weak spots. Shore up your defense and then attack without mercy.
Instead, in the absence of concrete answers, what are the people of this nation left to pursue in a candidate? Someone who looks back and attempts to recreate the past's benefits in order to tackle the problems of the present? Or one that looks to correct the problems of the present and future while maintaining a healthy respect of the past? It's hard to come across as the better of two choices when one offers cancer-causing sugar snacks, and the other has a day-old apple.
Those that continue to argue that Senator Obama speaks lofty and holds no substance, are half right. "Lofty talk" is what a Primary Season is all about. You talk policy points during debates, and elude to your stances during stump speeches. Dismissing his speeches as all air is more likely just subjective criticism based on his mannerisms, diction and the 10K+ crowds he regularly draws. If it looks like a rock concert... enough said.
Right now, Clinton's got to get the monkey off her back and then come out swinging. It's the 9th round and the judges' points are with Obama. She can only win this now with a TKO uppercut, not with a pansy body-shot like, "He won't debate me in Wisconsin". The ad's weak, and it costs money. Dump it.
What, the fight analogy's not good enough? How about something more definitive?
She's needs to load up a bigger bullet in this revolver of a campaign. Then she has three options: She needs to shoot it, bite it or swallow it.
*Note: I'm currently working on a thesis paper based upon the DNC primary campaigns' two interpretations/implementations of Mr. Alinsky's philosophies. Stay tuned, exerpts will follow over the next month or two.