The Pack Attack On Sentor Clinton

We are seeing the results of a field candidates being forced into an attack posture to merely get some ‘ink.’ Is it a comment on the ability of other candidates to get the spotlight in a difficult campaign or is it a cleaned up version of the ‘Politics of Personal Destruction’?

The concerted hour long attack on Senator Clinton was a demeaning moment for her opponents, not for the questioning of a fellow candidate, but because it was so transparently an effort to rattle her. Some of her answers showed the effectiveness of the constant attacks. The campaign media operation has tried to clarify a few of her answers. To that extent the attack by the ‘pack’ of men was successful.

On another level the ‘pack’ attack rebounded in the other direction. It showed the weakness of the other campaigns. Instead of focusing on their own platforms it was ‘attack’ Senator Clinton then contrast their positions. Using the effort to rattle her, they wanted to get the spotlight for their own position. Like many others mentioned in Pamela Leavey’s post below, I think the long term impact of a concerted ‘pack’ will rebound in Senator Clinton’s favor.

Notice those that did not participate to any major degree. Biden, Richardson, Kucinich…maybe you include Dodd in that group. Perhaps they deserve an ‘attaboy’ for not piling on.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The Pack Attack On Sentor Clinton

  1. Ian Welsh says:

    She’s the front runner. Of course they’re going to gang up on her. It’s not demeaning to them or to her as far as I can see. If the leader had been a man in the same position, the same thing would have happened.