I read, with utter amazement, these words in the New York Daily news, under the headline Sen. Clinton's massive mistake - and the final chance to fix it
The flaw wasn't just the attempt to go back to the future, to the 1990s,
but that the Clintons picked the wrong year in that decade. Instead of 1992,
when Bill was the personification of change, their model was 1996. So Hillary
ran as a pseudo-incumbent, with a selection of bite-size proposals and an
abundance of caution and transparent calculation. Why would any campaign ever
explicitly announce a tour to make the candidate "likable"? Or, as happened when
the beleaguered Clinton machine sputtered into New Hampshire, that they now had
a plan for her to be spontaneous and actually answer audience questions?
Hmmmm.... Who was the author of this brilliant [sic] piece of analysis? None other than Bob Shrum, the architect of 8 Democratic Presidential campaigns. That makes him an expert, right?
Um...only by Liberal standards. You see, the 8 candidates, that selected Shrum to run things, all lost. That's right, all 8 of them. John Kerry was the the latest.
The first thing that strikes me is that Shrum has the audacity to presume to think anything he says about a Presidential election is worth listening to. Does he have any shame? The second thing is that the Daily News thought the same.
It's kind of like Marv Levy lecturing the Bears for losing a Super Bowl (he lost 4 in a row). It's kind of like Britney Spears writing a column on good parenting skills. It's kind of like Lizzy Bordon, Axe murdering her two parents and pleading for mercy for a poor orphan.
Incredible....just friggin' incredible.
~The Knight
|