|
Edited on Fri Jan-04-08 08:44 AM by Sparkly
I agree they've been cautious. I think there are a couple of reasons for that, which are politically smart in one way but still a risk in themselves.
She's had to overcome a portrayal that she's a crazy "feminazi" liberal blah blah blah, and that she's bitchy and aggressive. So she's careful to temper that and appear warm and unthreatening. If she were to be fiery and fierce and the dreaded "angry," she'd be attacked like mad on both sides.
She does answer questions but she's careful not to make promises she can't keep, speak in absolutes, or give yes/no answers to more complex questions. If she were to get the nom, that'd put her in good stead when the GOP starts trying to pull out quotes and twist them to make her seem reckless and crazy and dangerous to national security, etc. (On security matters in particular, she's got to overcome a lot of resistance to the idea of a woman as Commander in Chief.)
However, when a questioner insists, "A simple 'yes' or 'no,' which is it?!?" and the answer is, "Well, it depends" or something else that isn't 'yes' or 'no,' many people roll their eyes at the answer rather than the question.
I think it is very much about the difference between a primary and a general election. It's a tricky thing to navigate. Her speeches are very strong and clear; it's answering questions framed by others where her caution can play to the "triangulating" meme.
Edited for typo.
|