I have had it with the over-analysis of Senator Clinton’s tear filled moment. John Edwards hurt himself with his questioning of her resolve and now we have this from the Obama camp:
We saw something very clever in the last week of this campaign coming out of Iowa, going into New Hampshire, we saw a sensitivity factor. Something that Mrs. Clinton has not been able to do with voters that she tried in New Hampshire. Not in response to voters – not in response to Katrina, not in response to other issues that have devastated the American people, the war in Iraq, we saw tears in response to her appearance. So her appearance brought her to tears, but not hurricane Katrina.
Edwards was claiming leaders should show resolve during tough times and now Jackson is saying the Senator was not tearful enough during Katrina? I have a lot of respect for both men but do these two know both how stupid they sound and how contradictory their attempts at criticism turn out to be. WTF does this have to do with the issues that we are supposed to be debating during this campaign. Also – I trust that Mr. Jackson does not wish to be confused with Bill Kristol:
10:47 PM: CNN and Fox News have declared Clinton the winner.
10:42 PM: Bill Kristol: “It’s the tears. She pretended to cry. The women felt sorry for her. And she won.”
10:32 PM: MSNBC and the AP have called the Democratic race for
Clinton. CNN and Fox News are not yet making a projection.
The Edwards campaign seems to be going nowhere and part of the reason is that he is turning to really dumb sound bite messages rather than hammering away on the real issues. While the Obama campaign seems to be doing well for whatever reason, his camp would do well to drop these stupid sound bite messages and start focusing on specific problems and his proposed policy solutions.