Politics Again

It really is hard to avoid thinking about the political primaries. They are so easy to fill with drama. Characters. Dreams. Aspirations. Entire world views to consider. Subtext. . . And the slow-motion process that allows for fascinating analysis of tactics.

My favorite so far is the tactic of complaining that complaining isn't a tactic. Or, in more concrete terms, why does anyone spend any time debating whether Bill Clinton should or shouldn't be the "attack dog" for the Hillary Clinton campaign? Or whether its fair for anyone to complain about it? First, he did act like the attack dog for a few weeks, right or wrong, and people did feel it was unfair. Do we really have to figure out who is objectively correct? It's a tactic to act the way he did, and it is also a tactic to complain about him doing it. For the rest of us, who aren't campaign strategists, why do we even bother thinking about it?

My most interesting thought so far about tactics is the idea that Obama's "attack" at the South Carolina debate on Monday night was purposeful -- and purposefully didn't have to succeed very well. He'd been taking hits from Bill and HIllary along the side from New Hampshire to Neveda, so he could either keep taking hits along the side while trying to move forward and ignore them and hope that the hits don't slow him down too much. Or, deciding that the hits are doing real damage, he can turn his boat in to the line of fire.

Turning the boat in to the line of fire will of course result in more punishment for him more quickly. Hence the stupid mainstream media saying that Bill had gotten in to his head and that he was now losing by fighting on their ground. But sometimes, when you're in a fight, you actually have to use tactics that result in loses in order to make gains, right? Turn your boat in to the line of fire, you can get off some shots of your own. . . But, even more importantly, since this isn't really a naval battle, in this case, you're demonstrating for the viewers of the battle that you are brave enough to turn your boat in to fire, you can fire off a couple, and you can point out where all the shrapnel is coming from. Plus, you can hope that once you give them a big enough target, they fire all they've got and you're still standing.

Is this a strategy that might not work? Of course. All strategies might not work. You do them because you think they're the best. They always involve lose, and you keep on fighting. I could be wrong but it doesn't appear to me that most of the press seem to see the forest for the trees. They count up what looks good or bad at that particular moment and think it is reality. I suppose I wouldn't mind some "horse race" coverage if it was just good horse race coverage.

The best battles are the ones where both sides use their strengths to the best of their abilities. Someone's going to win anyway and someone's going to lose but it doesn't mean anyone did anything wrong. Obama doesn't want to attack (He mentions Walmart but not whitewater, lewinsky, etc. ,etc.?) so he really shouldn't except when its the only move. Bill Clinton may be the best weapon Hillary has. So it has a downside. And his attacks are annoying to me. It still may be the best way to fight. It is a mistake of the press to think that there is some kind of platonic ideal of a campaign with some kind of tabula rasa candidate that can just do the exact right thing at the right time. And that you can judge who won a battle outside of the context of who won the war.

Also about the press- I realize why the myth of objectivity has reined in journalism for so long. Because most journalist aren't qualified to do anything but report what they actually saw or heard. Once you allow them to give their assessment of what is happening rather than their stenography of what happened, you realize how long contact with something doesn't make you an expert in it. Experts are expert in it. If only they would be more observant.

Just typing.