Strategy
I'm getting the feeling that my favorite polyblog site does not support Hillary. Either they aren't condemning enough, or I've already made up my mind, because my opinion, however muddled, does not seem affected by their jabs.
For instance, this post claims that it doesn't make sense that Hillary ever supported the war (or voted for it) when she full well knew there was no reason to invade Iraq. He says the reason she voted for it was a 2008 campaign tactic.
(Note: her website says if she is president, she will end the war. Like many who supported the war before, she has wisely changed her stance, though I haven't watched enough debates to know how strongly she opposes the war now.)
Supporting the war at any level is a risky campaign tactic, seeing as thousands of American lives are at stake. Since for a time she supported the war, she potentially alienated the millions of voters who opposed the war, and those numbers haven't been on the decline in some time.
BUT, she also potentially gained the approval of the millions who did (and still do) support the war. And, something tells me that the gains through this group outweigh the losses from the other group. She's playing a smart game because she wants to be President of the United States, not just a democratic nominee who lost. Again.
Didn't Rove play a similar game in the last election when he put the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the spotlight and dug up the evangelicals who took the bait at the polls, leading to the election of a man they thought represented them?
From the looks of the polls now, her strategy is working. I'm not yet saying she's guaranteed my vote, but unlike in 2000, when I naively voted for Nader because "I wanted my vote to count for the truth" (whatever that meant), I'll be more careful. I now know what immoral consequences await when a winning strategy is not used, even when the tactics are not entirely moral.
P.S. I wish I had a fact-checker, but I don't, so if my memory on any of this is off, please correct me.
For instance, this post claims that it doesn't make sense that Hillary ever supported the war (or voted for it) when she full well knew there was no reason to invade Iraq. He says the reason she voted for it was a 2008 campaign tactic.
(Note: her website says if she is president, she will end the war. Like many who supported the war before, she has wisely changed her stance, though I haven't watched enough debates to know how strongly she opposes the war now.)
Supporting the war at any level is a risky campaign tactic, seeing as thousands of American lives are at stake. Since for a time she supported the war, she potentially alienated the millions of voters who opposed the war, and those numbers haven't been on the decline in some time.
BUT, she also potentially gained the approval of the millions who did (and still do) support the war. And, something tells me that the gains through this group outweigh the losses from the other group. She's playing a smart game because she wants to be President of the United States, not just a democratic nominee who lost. Again.
Didn't Rove play a similar game in the last election when he put the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the spotlight and dug up the evangelicals who took the bait at the polls, leading to the election of a man they thought represented them?
From the looks of the polls now, her strategy is working. I'm not yet saying she's guaranteed my vote, but unlike in 2000, when I naively voted for Nader because "I wanted my vote to count for the truth" (whatever that meant), I'll be more careful. I now know what immoral consequences await when a winning strategy is not used, even when the tactics are not entirely moral.
P.S. I wish I had a fact-checker, but I don't, so if my memory on any of this is off, please correct me.
posted by Anne at 9:03 PM
2 Comments:
One frustrating issue that has crept up in the last few weeks--though is by no means new--is that recent news cycles have depicted Giuliani as a strong leader who speaks his mind no matter what. Voters view this as a good quality, at least for a man. When Hillary does the same thing she is seen as a bitch, or less blatant, the public perceives her as a woman who rubs people the wrong way. Why is an opinionated man okay, when an opinionated woman isn't? Obviously, this is a hypothetical question, but one that has been bugging me.
I'm sure Hillary has encountered many a double-standard.
I think one of her strongest characteristics is that she has iron skin. She's been poked at and sliced open for so long that there isn't much left to uncover. How about the nonsense about criticizing her laugh? That's the best they can do?
I think (hope) our country has come far enough to see past sexist criticisms. Hillary makes it obvious that such judgements are absurd.
Post a Comment
<< Home