From: bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Is George running for First Lady?
Summary: Clinton shows a taste of something rare in politics:
Keywords: Elections, Candidates, Presidential politics
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:40:40 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

In article <80984@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>It is interesting that the Republican nominees made their wives into major 
>convention speakers, whereas the Democrats did not.  Clinton's basic 
>response has been to treat the attack on his wife casually.  I believe
>that this is a mistake.  The only strategy that the Republicans have is
>to tear down his character.  This is just what happened to Dukakis--e.g. 
>when he failed to take hypothetical revenge on a hypothetical attacker for 
>a hypothetical rape of his wife.  A winning response might have been to 
>blast back at the questioner for having the nerve to ask such a question,
>a technique that Bush has mastered.  The public has shown its willingness
>to rally to candidates who are unfairly attacked, and Clinton's response 
>was just to play down or defuse the issue.  That response not only fails to
>gain public sympathy, but it leaves the Republicans free to keep it up.  I
>hope that this doesn't become a pattern for Clinton, or Bush really will
>be able to c
>#P	ol the election agenda.
>

You've actually hit on one of the things I've respected most about
Clinton: His unwillingness to get caught up emotionally in the
obviously senseless attacks the Republicans have thrown at him and
the sense of calm and reason he has shown. The Reagan Revolution
came about largely because the Republicans were able to appeal to
the emotions of the voters, thereby relieving the voters from having
to _think_ about _issues_. One response to this might be to try and
fight fire with fire, and in doing so, Clinton would only perpetuate
the larger problem--a passive and apathetic electorate. By continuing
to hammer away at the issues and refusing to get caught up in the
smear campaign Bush has been forced to resort to, Clinton is, in my
opinion, showing himself the better man. My two favorite examples are:
His response to the sophomoric tirade by the Republican National
Committee Chairman (I don't know the guy's name) about a week or so 
before the Republican Convention, which was to do little more than
say (in essence), "They don't have a program to stand on, so they are
trying to win with a smear campaign. It's really sad;" and his
campaign manager's response to media reports that Bush was considering
raising tensions with Iraq during the course of the Republican
Convention as a means of underscoring his foreign policy experience,
which was (in essence), "We wouldn't expect this president, or any
president, to use his powers as commander-in-chief for political means."
I actually think Clinton would do well to stand behind the president on
the very difficult question of the Yugoslavian conflict, rather than
seeing this as a possible vulnerable spot. I'm confident, however, that
the Clinton/Gore camp will make the right moves here too.

It's about time somebody started treating the voters like thinking
people. Hopefully, the voters will prove worthy of such treatment.

-------------------------------------------------
Bruce Overby
Stratus Computer, Inc.
San Jose, CA


"Get at dem beans!"  -- Hoss Cartwright

My opinions may not reflect those of my employer.
--------------------------------------------------