Comments on: Saturday musings http://backalleymedia.org/?p=253 News and Views on the 2012 Elections Wed, 08 Sep 2010 01:00:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: More Triangulation | Back Alley Media http://backalleymedia.org/?p=253#comment-403 More Triangulation | Back Alley Media Mon, 10 Mar 2008 03:26:49 +0000 http://backalleymedia.org/?p=253#comment-403 [...] Suzanne’s awesome post, which was linked to by Andrew Sullivan (!), here’s yet more evidence that the Clinton [...] […] Suzanne’s awesome post, which was linked to by Andrew Sullivan (!), here’s yet more evidence that the Clinton […]

]]> By: Brilliant Politics » Blog Archive » Poisoning the Well, Part 4 http://backalleymedia.org/?p=253#comment-400 Brilliant Politics » Blog Archive » Poisoning the Well, Part 4 Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:34:21 +0000 http://backalleymedia.org/?p=253#comment-400 [...] the Clinton triangulation strategy? Back Alley Media does: This Clinton move should be familiar to any democratic leaders who’ve been around awhile. [...] […] the Clinton triangulation strategy? Back Alley Media does: This Clinton move should be familiar to any democratic leaders who’ve been around awhile. […]

]]> By: vshawnt http://backalleymedia.org/?p=253#comment-399 vshawnt Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:17:28 +0000 http://backalleymedia.org/?p=253#comment-399 Obama needs to respond to this by pounding hard on the arrogance (or the "audacity of audacity", as I heard it called) of someone solidly in 2nd place hinting that she'd be open to him being her VP. That simultaneously stifles their ability to hint (falsely) at the chance for a two-fer just to draw votes, and changes the story to one that reinforces the negative perception of the Clinton's arrogance. It would be absurd for Obama to be VP, since 1) he's in the lead and will remain there, 2) Bill will be the VP. It would be absurd for Obama to ask Clinton to be his VP because, 1) Clinton brings a lot of negatives, 2) They're both from solidly blue Northern states, 3) He brings Bill into the White House which would be a distraction. Obama needs to make the Clinton's pay for this type of political manipulation by turning this story into one that highlights her hubris. Obama needs to respond to this by pounding hard on the arrogance (or the “audacity of audacity”, as I heard it called) of someone solidly in 2nd place hinting that she’d be open to him being her VP. That simultaneously stifles their ability to hint (falsely) at the chance for a two-fer just to draw votes, and changes the story to one that reinforces the negative perception of the Clinton’s arrogance.
It would be absurd for Obama to be VP, since 1) he’s in the lead and will remain there, 2) Bill will be the VP.
It would be absurd for Obama to ask Clinton to be his VP because, 1) Clinton brings a lot of negatives, 2) They’re both from solidly blue Northern states, 3) He brings Bill into the White House which would be a distraction.
Obama needs to make the Clinton’s pay for this type of political manipulation by turning this story into one that highlights her hubris.

]]> By: dpolsby http://backalleymedia.org/?p=253#comment-395 dpolsby Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:16:32 +0000 http://backalleymedia.org/?p=253#comment-395 Great insights, Suzanne. I'm not as worried about the "Obama=VP" line of rhetoric as you are (shocker), though I think you've correctly assessed their reasons for using it. I think it smacks of bizarro hubris and not a little desperation. Imagine a general who's getting routed (not that she's getting *routed* yet, but you follow me) offering his counterpart an unconditional surrender and you see what I mean. I agree that Obama has to respond, but/and I kind of think it will be easy to -- one merely has to expose it for its illogic and desperation: (HC: "Okay, so you're beating me in state after state after state and have an insurmountable delegate lead. I'll offer you the vice-presidency, and that's my final offer, take it or leave it.") Great insights, Suzanne. I’m not as worried about the “Obama=VP” line of rhetoric as you are (shocker), though I think you’ve correctly assessed their reasons for using it. I think it smacks of bizarro hubris and not a little desperation. Imagine a general who’s getting routed (not that she’s getting *routed* yet, but you follow me) offering his counterpart an unconditional surrender and you see what I mean.

I agree that Obama has to respond, but/and I kind of think it will be easy to — one merely has to expose it for its illogic and desperation: (HC: “Okay, so you’re beating me in state after state after state and have an insurmountable delegate lead. I’ll offer you the vice-presidency, and that’s my final offer, take it or leave it.”)

]]> By: Knemon http://backalleymedia.org/?p=253#comment-390 Knemon Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:44:08 +0000 http://backalleymedia.org/?p=253#comment-390 "Obama’s test is now — not the general" Hubris. The general will be nobody's cakewalk. “Obama’s test is now — not the general”

Hubris. The general will be nobody’s cakewalk.

]]>