November 20, 2007This Week in the World ~ contests and challenges
It’s a landslide - the new SpeakStrong wristband will have the message “Every Word Matters” on the back.
“Every Word Matters” was suggested by S. Bremmer, who will receive five free wristbands. Thanks for all the dozens of suggestions and hundreds of votes. I’ll let you know when the bands are available.
Speaking of contests... I won a contest for free ads on the Air America radio show, Clout. I had a lot of fun with it, and they helped me redo the ad to make it better. I’ll post it when it’s ready with an article that explains the techniques in the ad.
How did you hear it?
In last week’s Democratic debate, Edwards accused Clinton of defending a system that doesn’t work and is broken and corrupt. Clinton responded by saying, “When somebody starts throwing mud at least we can hope it’s accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook.”
I heard the Edwards comment as a challenge to her policy rather than mud slinging. I heard Clinton’s remark as a ploy to avoid responding. How did you hear it? (You can read about it here and comment on my blog.)
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark
this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos
I certainly heard evasion in Sen Clinton’s reply. I always hear this type of evasion as being an admission that the comments are true and there is no qay to argue with them.
Nik
Comment by Nik Nikkel — November 20, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
You have managed to describe the Clinton strategy in part. That is, to avoid answering by characterizing the question as “mudslinging”. The companion strategy is to attack the credibility of anyone who questions her or him.
Comment by John Moorman — November 20, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
I agree with your interpretation that Hillary Clinton was avoiding the question. Edwards was not mudslinging. To me it appears that Clinton was using the Republican tactic of attacking the questioner while she was pointing the finger and virtually accusing the questioner of employing the Republican tactic of mudslinging. In other words, Clinton was doing what she was accusing Edwards of doing.
Comment by Lisa Bergthold — November 25, 2007 @ 12:29 am
Regarding Hillary’s seeming evasion — the administration has dealt for years now by responding to or attributing a process to the opposition — a way to nullify or sidetrack…without providing any content in rebuttal. It reminds me of being told
I was “going through a phase” when I was a child, totally nullifying what I was concerned about, asking for, or the
content of my comment.
Comment by Paul Radde — November 28, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
Great point, Paul. The same dynamics that happen on the national level happen at home. I’d suggest that they are used deliberately more often on the national level, but they have the same nullifying affect.
There’s an implied assumption in the phase comment - that phases are things you ignore and dismiss. In my mind, even if you were “going through a phase,” your concerns are likely things you could have used support for.
Comment by merylrunion — December 3, 2007 @ 8:51 am
Since when is calm, factual analysis called mudslinging? We know Edwards’ analysis was on point, because now Clinton is using “change” as often as she used to use “experience”.
By the way, I like to study her answers to questions as great examples of evasive technique. I notice that she almost never answers the question that was asked of her. And when called on this, she evades that question as well.
Comment by amy — December 19, 2007 @ 7:51 am