During the primaries, other Democratic candidates went negative, attacking Mr. Obama on many fronts (I won't detail any here; if you've paid attention to any news in the past 20+ months, you know). When Obama did not respond to the negative attacks, the media labeled him weak. When he did respond, the original attackers whined about his negativity and the media accused him of going negative.
Well, here we are just four weeks away from the general election. The other guy is all the way negative. Alright, you might argue that it's not the other guy -- it's his wife, his running mate, some weirdo sheriff of a Florida county, whomever. That begs a question: what about the theory of vicarious liability? It's not as much of a stretch as one might think. Whatever the other guy's camp does or says, it is a reflection on him (he is the head of his campaign and his party -- right?). Isn't that what happens when folks on my candidate's team make any kind of utterance? Mr. Obama is automatically responsible and taken to task for whatever is said.
So which is it? The rock or the hard place?
How about neither?
No comments:
Post a Comment