Barack Obama is stepping it up by attacking his opponent on television ads. Is that dirty politics or just doing what it takes to win? Either way, it is safe to say that Obama was taken off guard with the Republican energy that stems from the choice of Sarah Palin. Although I consider this to be dirty politicking, the New York Times was not slow to state that it was in response to McCain's false and misleading "back to back attack" ads.
The buzz word for this election is change; and who can provide the most of it. Obama's attack plays off this word by stating that "things have changed in the last 26 years, but John McCain hasn't... after one president who was out of touch, we just can't afford more of the same." Because the choice of Palin has stirred up the class of working women, Obama's advertisements touch on the subject of pay equity for women. According the Obama campaign, McCain has "seized" the change issue from them, which led them having to resort to attacks. Even though the majority of the article is sympathetic towards the Democrats, it acknowledges disunity in what the Democrats think that the campaign should be doing.
At such a critical time in both campaigns, it is almost expected that both tickets are becoming aggressive. I believe that the election is going to come down to the working white, working women and independent voters. However, I see Obama's attacks as a desperate attempt to try and sway those voters back towards the center, and hopefully (before the election) back over to the left. But never failing to spin the article, New York Times assures readers that the Obama campaign is not struggling, only a little behind the symbol for change that Palin has provided. No worries though, Obama has met with Former President Bill Clinton for strategies. Which if that is the case, this election just got more interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment