Edited on Tue Feb-19-08 07:25 PM by Tom Rinaldo
What we need to know in a primary is how well our candidates respond and hold up under fire. It actually is better for us if a line of possible attack against our ultimate candidate emerges before the General Election campaign begins than during it. In a way it is similar to what is called "getting out in front" of a negative issue: Flush it out, make it old news, move on. If Obama becomes our nominee it will be far better for him to deal with this "borrowed words" matter now rather than have it freshly sprung on him in an attack ad by the Republicans.
Remember there was a Republican candidate running against Deval Patrick back when he made his speeches the first time. The Republican Party already knows exactly how Patrick defeated them in Massachusetts. They were there at the time paying very close attention.
The problem for any opponent of Obama in the primaries is that Democratic primary voters have misgivings about Democrats attacking other Democrats, so it is a double edged sword to initiate an attack; it can cut the one wielding that sword more than the intended victim. The Republicans will have no such concern. As soon as it would have done them the most good they would have used this against Obama themselves. They didn't need Hillary Clinton or anyone else to point this out to them. Political operatives carefully study the political campaigns of their adversaries. They know who Barack Obama's campaign manager has managed in the past. They are already pouring over the records of those campaigns for clues how he will manage Obama's current campaign.
The Republicans already knew all about this potential "controversy" and they would have made damn sure the public found out also at the appropriate time. It's just the Democratic primary voters who had no clue this might come up.
|