I must say, I find most of the talk about "change" and "hope" rather inane. Luntz keeps establishing that everyone's "for change" and then presses them on which candidate, for them, most embodies change. Toward the end of the clip, he asks which "messsage" — "hope" or "experience" — works better, and when "hope" wins, he asks whether it's fair to question whether Obama can "make hope happen." The question seems to defy the whole nature of "hope." Obama has already inspired hope. If you want more than that, you want something other than hope. If hope is enough, Obama is transcendently perfect.
ADDED: I think this video illustrates what people were reacting to. Note that the content is fine, but the way she looks and sounds sets off an emotional response in the human animal:
AND: The Anchoress surveys the reaction to Hillary and opines:
I watched the video and didn’t think she came off too shrewish. A little incoherent, desperate sounding and clearly angry - she must so ticked off that she is finding herself in this position when she was pretty sure she was gliding to a coronation - and I think I read somewhere a while back that her claims about insuring National Guardsmen are a stretch, but stretching is what Clinton’s do, so no one will care. Perhaps it played worse in the context of the whole debate, but to me this video does not seem like the “moment of implosion” which many are waiting for. I think she’s going to get a lot angrier before that happens.
Waiting for the woman to blow up. Is that wrong?
No comments:
Post a Comment