Maureen Dowd
New York Times
April 2, 2008
This article seeks to give credit to Hillary for Obama's progress throughout the current election. The author argues that whether or not Hillary wins the election, she has proved to be an effective "political tutor" for Obama, who was once a timid, inexperienced, and a perhaps naive candidate. She goes on to argue that if it weren't for Hillary, Obama would not be as good of a debater, and many of his other strong qualities have come from his experience of competing with Hillary. I believe it is a bit of a stretch to give Hillary so much credit for experience that he could or would have gained after a few more years in his political career. His main flaw in his candidacy is that voters don't believe that he is "seasoned" enough to run the country and he needs more experience, however, he has proven himself to be very capable of handling his campaign as well as debates and aggressive interviews. But I don't think he owes it to Hillary. Dowd seems to reiterate that she admires Hillary for emphasizing that the point of an election is to win, and Hillary seems to be doing everything she can to win, while the shy, cavalier Obama slowly learns from her tactics. Overall I thought this article was basically a worship piece towards Hillary Clinton and didn't enjoy the very little credit she gave to Obama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think this article would have aggrivated me mainly because it seems opinion based. I can't imagine the author having good hard evidence to back this claim up. I can't imagin anyone being a confident enough writer to publish this. It sounds like all the writer did was say " I'm bias I'm bias I'm bias"....
How would a man get all the way to where he is if he didn't know what he was doing? There is no way that Hilary got him to where he is. Of course he is going to look like he is doing better with her there. They are competing. His whole campaign depends on the voters thinking he is better than Hilary.
Post a Comment