Hillary v. Obama: Comparison of their attack styles

[hokies4ever]

I've come to the conclusion that Obama is much more deft at his political attack style than Hillary Clinton. Here's my military analogy.

Hillary's attack philosophy is death by a thousand cuts. To destroy a platoon of tanks, she would make repeated strafing runs with bullets over and over again. Kind of a kitchen sink strategy. I think this has done her a disservice during this campaign season. She lingers over hostile airspace too long and everybody sees that she is the one attacking. So she ends up taking flak, driving up her negatives while trying to drive up her opponent's negatives. Any civilian casualties are seen as her fault due to her aggression.

Obama's attack philosophy is to wait for a counterattack, strike quickly, then get the hell out of dodge. To destroy a platoon of tanks, he would just fly a B2 bomber at 30,000 feet, drop one nuclear bomb, then return to base safely. He waits until the tanks appear vulnerable and are out in the open before striking at them. I think this is much more effective than Hillary's attack philosophy. He's able to do a lot of damage without taking much flak and not being too visible as the attacker.

I think one of the exit polls from PA asked the question, "Who is most responsible for the negative attacks?" It was something like 3% Obama, 49% Hillary, 48% both campaigns. I think Hillary's campaign made a fatal mistake in not finding a way to lure Obama into an attack in which she could counterattack and pounce on him, instead of just launching the attacks first. I think she's starting to learn though. For example, I saw a clip of her in NC just recently where she told people that they could vote for a candidate for whatever reason they want, even their hairstyle. I think she was trying to lure Obama to attack her on playing the race card so that she could then counterattack strongly that he is focusing on divisive issues instead of the real issues important to Americans. Unfortunately for her, Obama never bit that bait. I think they saw straight through that ruse.

Obama showed his nuclear bomb / get the hell out of dodge strategy when Hillary attacked him on William Ayers and he just mentioned that Bill Clinton pardoned two members of the Weather Underground. Haven't heard a peep about Ayers from her campaign again. Looks like that kitchen sink landed on her big toe when she tried to throw it at Obama.

And let's be honest. It's not like Obama hasn't thrown some haymakers at Hillary, yet most people blame Hillary for starting the negative tone of the campaigns. For example, one of Obama's surrogates said:

"Bill Clinton cannot possibly seriously believe Obama is not a patriot, and cannot possibly be said to be helping -- instead he is hurting -- his own party. B. Clinton should never be forgiven. Period. This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress."

OUCH! Another devastating attack was when a PA veteran Gen. Walter Stewart said:
"One of the inherent duties of the president of the United States is to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day. Imagine the lack of moral authority she has now to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day."

How much fallout was there from this comment? Hardly none. His campaign just denounced it the next day, after the harm was already done, and the media was too busy with other stories to bother holding his campaign's feet to the fire over this comment.

Just thought others might be interested in my insight on this subject matter. Overall, I think that Hillary's campaign has done herself a disservice. Obama is the newcomer, yet he's already mastered the art of the political counterattack.

[davidpdx]

1. Damn

I don't have time to read it so I'm replying to this to remind myself to read it later. I'll add a comment then as well.

[hokies4ever]

2. Thanks

{i.e. shameless bump}
I spent some time thinking about this, so just wanted to get more people to read it. :patriot: