The Way I See Things

POINT #1:
In contrast to previous debates, there are some technical issues Senator Obama needs to address. Now, ABC has already committed to more aggressive moderating and Senator Obama needs to make sure they follow through. Senator Clinton has previously attempted to monopolize the discussion of issues.

This behavior has to be halted.

If she starts to undermine the proceedings, Senator Obama needs to intervene and explain...
The debate is NOT a Clinton Campaign Commercial.

Voters/viewers think many of the issues are equally important. Health care is important if an economy exists where people can feed themselves and their families. The economy is important if people feel secure about their jobs; their homes; and a sense of fairness in who is taxed--who contributes to the operation of their government--and how.. National security is important if people feel like they have a government that values their priorities and concerns.

POINT #2:
The issue of Credibility is paramount in this dialogue...
There's a clear and qualitative distinction between making a mistake and/or poorly chosen words versus...
Fabricating a falsehood into a truth.

The point here would be to allude to Bosnia but--Really, Actually--the focus would be on...
The characterization of Senator Obama as an elitist.
Yes.
Bait and switch.
Regardless, whichever she assumes, she will have to address one, if not both, issues.

And in this component of character there is a clear contrast between himself, and Senators Clinton and McCain and President Bush.

Senator Obama has been forthcoming and earnest about not only his own mistakes but those of his staff, surrogates and personal allies/friends that are not involved in campaign policy/decision making. He has not lied about Senator Clinton. He has not tried to portray her inaccurately. Accuracy actually serves to better highlight their differences--and he could even say her deficiencies (even though he's probably too diplomatic to do so)--well enough that he has no need to resort to...
The underhanded tactics she's chosen.

And to clarify, those tactics are--at least--framing Senator McCain as more qualified than another Democrat, and trying to define Senator Obama as an elitist.

POINT #3:
When he speaks about his San Francisco/Pennsylvania comments, he should--once again--apologize for the mistake in choice of words, then...
He should make his central theme very clear...
That...
Without hope...
Without change...
Without feeling like what they do contributes to a better America for all...
People who don't feel disenfranchised...
Choose either...
1) Apathy, disinterest and non-participation...
OR...
2) Cast their votes in support of things that are familiar to them.

Things such as:
* Who best represents the tenets of their religion...
* Who sounds/looks most like I do...
* Who protects their jobs from illegal immigrants...
* Who protects their tangible rights, like their right to keep their gun...

Because, if that candidate wins, they will feel they accomplished something...
Despite...
* The investment in corporate interests/special interests/lobbyists they feel control Congress...
* The escalating corporate profits concomitant with the increase in food prices & gas prices, and the sacrifices those entail in how people feed their families, the activities available to them...
* The loss of home values while the government invests tens of billions to rescue financial institutions in which they have no investment...
* The loss of jobs across all sectors...
* The horrendous debt that college entails, while those financing that debt bask in, once again, record profits...
* The consent of those that have been serving in Congress, who've done nothing with their power except enable these conditions...

Because...
* They have no hope that they can change those things...
* They have no hope that anyone in any branch of government cares about changing those things.

Senator Obama's campaign is solely about everyone working together to...
Create Hope And Change.

And, once again, I reiterate that Senator Obama should explain that while he was interpreting the words, feelings, substance of what he heard in Pennsylvania--and also how he thinks HE would feel if he were in their position (he should Emphasize His Empathy); he should also apologize for not asking Those Pennsylvanians how they would like to be described.

POINT #4
Senator Obama can make a strong and bold case that he isn't running as an opportunity to, possibly, amass...
Another...
$100+ million after his time in office.
He can make a strong and bold case that the only elitism he practices...
That which is incontrovertibly distinct from his opponents...
Is that which betters all of America.
Not just the Americans he knows.

POINT #5:
Senator Obama also needs to reinforce that he is a parent. A parent of young children. Not children who can fight and fend for themselves. That he has the concerns of a parent. About what type of economic, environmental and global citizenship/national security landscape awaits them. As a parent he thinks about the little girls whose parents are fighting, all over the world, for the security of our nation. And is that a noble and honorable endeavor. You can call him elitist all you'd like but he's thinking about the daughters that, like his own, did not grow up in mansions--governor's mansions or the White Houses or otherwise--and how to make their lives better.

POINT #6:
Senator Clinton stated that she was concerned about the Democratic Party but she's already proven she has no compunctions about eviscerating it, in allying herself with Republican Party interests (and even now with Senator Obama's San Francisco comments, she and Senator McCain sound eerily similar), to win the nomination.


MINOR CONCERNS:
* He can address the 'Duck Blind' and 'Annie Oakley' comments and state they were not connected. My interpretation was Senator Obama was referring to hunting in the former; and Senator Clinton as a 2nd Amendment affirming, gun carrying proponent in the latter. This is logical and sensible which, as he's proven, fits Senator Obama's character.

HUMOR
* I wish one of the moderators would come out with a penny, flip it into the air, and invite Senator Clinton to shoot it out of the air.
* Senator Obama could also tell Senator Clinton he feels safer sitting next to her, given her marksmanship skills, but hopes she hasn't had to many to drink before coming to the debate.
* Senator Obama could give Senator Clinton a gift prior to the debate: A bottle of Crown Royal.

That's my 'Armchair Strategist's' view.

And make no mistake...
It was a mistake.

People can rant and rail that his statements were taken out of context. And, indeed, I read the transcript and would agree...
Senator Obama is being framed.
HOWEVER...
I also think he should've...
Chosen his words Much more carefully.
But what's done is now done.

It was a grievous error and is now a potential meltdown site for Senator Obama's Pennsylvania Primary hopes...
But...
It is also...
Fixable.

I suggest 2 things:
1) This issue stabs straight into the heart of credibility matter. And Senator Clinton decided to speak out against Senator Obama, amplifying a message that was centrally placed into an absolutely wrong context. This makes it an issue for...
Debate.

Senator Obama can challenge Senator Clinton to prove--show the substance of--her disparaging remarks at the debate.

Senator Clinton, once again, is put into a position to compare her statements--where she 'misspoke', and its context--versus Senator Obama and what he has said and its context. Both she and President Clinton are quick to condemn and judge the unfairness of the media--it's 'double standard--when it works to their advantage. But they seem even more eager to leverage that same 'unfairness' when it benefits them.

She should be made to take a stand on her opportunism.

Obviously...
This is a point she CANNOT win.

Also, Pennsylvanians--and all good people--value justice. They value fairness. If they see Senator Obama fighting for his words--For Truth--that will have profound meaning in their impression of him.

2) Senator Obama should apologize to the Pennsylvania voters.

Not because of the substance of his remarks but because...
He took that message out of the state and, in essence, spoke behind the backs of Pennsylvanians.

He spoke for them and, seemingly...
Without their consent or assent.

They probably appreciate his sentiment but would probably have used different words to characterize themselves.
He should acknowledge that.

Senator Obama was simply a bit insensitive but...
Seeking only to do good not harm.
Ultimately, this is admirable.

Despite Senator Obama's statements to the contrary, many supporters and surrogates are calling for Senator Clinton to leave the campaign. I cannot align myself with that position. Furthermore, in my estimation...
There will never be an appropriate time for Senator Clinton to abandon her campaign.

There's a road ahead that she has to travel and SHE--Most Urgently--needs Senator Obama's help to complete that journey.

Polling and statements from party leaders indicate many of her recent actions have served to tear the Democratic Party asunder. In attempting to eviscerate Senator Obama--not just his campaign, but the man himself, she lent legitimacy and credence to Senator McCain's campaign (The Republican Party) at Senator Obama's expense. She cannot return to the Senate--WE cannot allow her to return to the Senate--with that bleak pall cast around either her or the Democratic Party.

It has always been my belief and it is now my contention, that each losing candidate needs to return from whence they came, Whole and Complete, if not better than when they set forth in their campaigns. The Clinton campaign has set Senator Clinton at a disadvantage in that regard.

However...
Senator Obama can restore to Senator Clinton what she has lost.

Senator Obama is in a position to aid both Senator Clinton and the Democratic Party and heal this division in very substantive ways. That was a measure of humanity and compassion that was lacking in some of the Clinton attacks. Senator Obama can provide her with opportunities to retract and repair some of her statements. He can provide her with forums to unify party members--people with a vested interest in ending that which is now less a presidential administration and more regime. However...
There needs to be time for this process to develop, evolve and bring people back together.

Senator Clinton needs to start--and I think she has indeed started!--cultivating a vision and a path toward Senator Obama. One her supporters find not merely palatable; or one to which, as Democrats, they are simply resigned; but a path they can feel passionate about. One that inspires them.

On the issues, she needs the ability to lead and create alliance for/between all of us. In implementing policy and initiatives, a President Obama needs to feel he can rely on Senator Clinton to work with him, not to contend against him, and/or spawn adversarial/counter proposals. Examine her convictions toward her healthcare proposal. Would she only support her plan, be open to compromise, or willing to side with Republicans in opposition to President Obama's plan? These are questions that I have no interest in posing beyond the hypothetical. January 20th, 2009 should be a date to affirm solidarity not doubt. So now, right now, is the time for coalition building, a time of healing.

Senator Clinton's departure at this point could represent a breeding ground of distrust, opposition and diminished influence for our party.

"Yes, we can!" is a statement of inclusion.
Not exclusion.
We're past these particular drills and exercises...
So we cannot simply 'practice' what we preach...
We must embody it.

I would love for the first commercial of the general election campaign to be President and Senator Clinton, sincerely and earnestly endorsing...
Barack Obama for President.

The Electoral College???

So...
The Clinton campaign is now, more vociferously, raising the spectre of the Electoral College as a measure of consideration...
That superdelegates should consider electoral votes as justification for nominating her as Democratic candidate.

She sows seeds in hopes of reaping odious fruit...
She's trying to capitalize on this abundance of time and sway people to her camp.

Because of its novelty--despite its lack of relevance to the primaries--some people will listen to this.

I think it is time for Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Gore to, immediately, demonstrate a measure of leadership, and commitment, to both the democratic process...
And...
The Democratic Party.

Geraldine Ferraro, rather than distance herself from earlier statements, is actually ESCALATING her rhetoric and defending her comments.

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

She also has the support of Pat Buchanan. Because he's previously worked with Ferraro, he stated that he likes and respects her.

On tonight's 'Live with Dan Abrams', Buchanan also defended Ferraro's comments, though with a caveat that that Senator Obama is running a "magnificent campaign".

"However, I do agree that that because he's an African-American, that's why he getting 91% of the African-American vote. And it's why you've got all this enthusiasm in the media and elsewhere for him, because he's an African-American. Now, I think those are, those are valid statements by her."

Earlier on 'Hardball with Chris Matthews', Buchanan attempted to make similar statements. Chris instantly challenged Buchanan, asking...
Why don't we say George Washington won because he was a white man?

I'll update this with exact quotes when the 'Hardball' transcript is available.

Obviously, this is going to progress to some very 'ugly' places...

UPDATE: Chris Matthews dissects Buchanan's position.

Buchanan: I do agree with this. If Barack Obama were not an African-American, I don‘t think he would be where he is. He‘s clearly a tremendously articulate individual, an able individual, a great orator who has won his way. Really, he‘s run a magnificent campaign. But he got his start off and he‘s winning 90 percent or 85 percent of the African-American vote because he‘s an African-American. I don‘t have a problem with that at all, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you, Pat, why don‘t we start talking in that regard about everybody? Bill Clinton wouldn‘t have been where he was if he weren‘t white, a male white.

Buchanan: Well...

MATTHEWS: George Washington wouldn‘t have been who he was if he were not a white male. I mean, how many—why do we have this new delineation that we never had before about white men?

Buchanan: Chris...

MATTHEWS: We never said, the only reason the guy is governor of New York is, he‘s a white male. We have learned that certainly in the last couple days.

Buchanan: I think, look, the Democrats themselves, Hillary said, it‘s wonderful, the first black male, the first woman for candidate for president. For heaven‘s sakes...

MATTHEWS: But, Pat...

Buchanan: ... the whole country is talking about it. Chris, get out of the political correctness, for heaven‘s sake.

MATTHEWS: No, I want to tell you something. But has anybody ever said, the only reason George Washington was our father of our country because he‘s a white male?

Buchanan: It wasn‘t true. It wasn‘t true.

MATTHEWS: I have never heard anybody say that.

Buchanan: He was a general in the revolution.

MATTHEWS: You mean, if he was a black female, he would have been...

Buchanan: He was a general in the revolution, for heaven‘s sakes. And he was the lead man at the Constitutional Convention. He was the greatest...

MATTHEWS: And he wouldn‘t have been any of those things if he wasn‘t a white male. Would you stop?