| When do you know you are fully immersed in a campaign? When you dream about arguments and counter-arguments, and actually come up with something you think is valid. Senator Clinton’s campaign is using Obama’s asset (exceptional ability to galvanize Americans through his moving speeches) and trying to turn that into a liability. In response Senator Obama is peppering his speeches with policy details, and telling people that speeches alone do not solve problems. While this is a valid quick response, but it uses the same frame of mind that Senator Clinton has already established (work not words) and plays defense on that field (yes, we can work too!). I think a more effective approach would be to reframe the argument in favor of Senator Obama and recast his power of oratory as an asset. Senator Obama’s speeches are powerful, they are full of policy details, and even when you read them you can hear his passion coming through. Yes he is passionate, and he is articulate, and he has plans for saving our country; trying to separate the three is like trying to take the cream out of Ice-cream. It is Senator Clinton’s inability in motivating the youth and overcoming voter apathy in her long career that we should be afraid of, and point out to as a sign on her inability to be a commander in chief. The best CEOs are the best salespeople for their company. They sell the vision and the message of the company most effectively using the power of words. If she cannot do that, why should she run for the job? On the other hand, Senator Obama’s power to motivate the youth and quash voter apathy is what can help us turn policy papers into reality. We do not need to be bashful about it. We like the cream in our ice-cream. |
