Dear John--
For a moment, the media had me convinced that Barack Obama really did need to "hit back" against the Clinton campaign's campaign of negativity.
However, after thinking about this obsessively for days, I am thoroughly confident and convinced that, in fact, Obama should not hit back.
The best way to describe what we democrats are feeling these days is fatigued. We're tired of this race and how ugly and hopeless it seems to have become.
Obama's biggest strength is his ability to inspire, energize and motivate Americans, democrat, republican and independent alike, to get involved and demand change in Washington and remind us that we are tired of the same old Washington games and gridlock.
Instead of fighting on Clinton's muddy turf, Obama should revert to his original model--the one in which he uses his incredible oratorical gifts to move us, to inspire us, to make us feel good about being Americans again.
This is the perfect moment for that to occur--because, think about it: At this point, the Clinton campaign has managed to polarize even the democratic party to the point where, if she keeps this up, the democrats may actually lose the election in November.
The only way to break the gridlock is to change the frame. Instead of hitting back, Obama should come out with a new stump speech: a "Plan A" speech that re-invigorates the media and voters with a renewed sense of hope and positivity.
Presenting a clear choice: between a candidate who will help us turn the page on the old and ugly gridlock vs. the one who helped author that old and ugly gridlock, is the only way to break the impasse.
Whether we recognize it or not, negativity makes all of us feel bad about politics and politicians.
The Clinton frame of reference -- "experience" "crisis" "vettedness," relies on concepts that are proxies for "familiarity." It's clever, because no matter how you slice and dice it, Clinton is the more "familiar" candidate and Obama cannot win on the familiarity front. When Obama responds to her apples with his apples, it reinforces the idea that all politicians are basically the same. But when he plays on his own turf, using his oratorical gifts to move us and fill us with hope, he reminds us all in a positive way that we don't necessarily think that Clinton's "familiarity" is a good or comforting thing.
Voters need to have a clear choice when they go into that booth: Not between Clinton's apples vs. Obama's apples, but between Clinton's apples and Obama's oranges. They need to have a framework that allows them to say to themselves: "I pick Clinton because she's familiar" OR "You know what? I really AM sick of the negativity and growing feeling of hopelessness that I've had for the last 7 years. I want something different. I want real CHANGE."
Just my 2 cents.
