Should Hillary Clinton go on to lose the Democratic nomination in what would be one of the most spectacular collapses in political history, one of the primary reasons will be the way she went into utter panic mode once she had a single lousy debate performance. First her campaign tried to blame Tim Russert and then tried to play the female card, both of which backfired dramatically. Then she started moving on to attacking Barack Obama for something he wrote in kindergarten, which is almost a Saturday Night Live version of opposition research. And then we get the attacks on cocaine use from a top official on her campaign. Each new poll showing her losing ground just prompted another absurd attack, which then lead to a further drop in the polls, which caused another attack, and so on. The only thing that Clinton has done by pursuing these negative tactics is to make Obama's case for him. It reminds voters why they are fed up with politics as usual and want a genuine change candidate like Obama in the first place. This is the political equivelent of kicking goals in your own net. Absolutely staggering.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.