Playing Offense

Via Bob Cesca, I see Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks has endorsed Obama and included this in his reasoning:

If we choose Hillary, then we have to defend her for the next nine months. I can and I will. But I’d rather play offense. I’d rather talk about how inspirational and hopeful and terrific our candidate is, and honestly, how theirs isn’t. It should be the Republicans playing defense this time around. Let’s make them.

I agree with Bob and Cenk – we can and will defend whoever our nominee is, as well as find ways to play offense on behalf of our nominee. Unlike the post-partisan bullshit, this is a real reason to be optimistic about an Obama candidacy. Obama is generating a real movement of Democratic activists, young voters, and new voters. If he wins the nomination, he’ll come into the general with a head of steam and more money than any presidential candidate has ever mustered for a campaign. It will immediately put the Republicans on the defensive and give us a unique chance to not only win in November, but do so in grand fashion.

4 thoughts on “Playing Offense

  1. He says it better, but Uygur’s point is what I was trying to argue a week ago when we were arguing over whether HRC would be attacked more than Obama. The idea is that a) Obama’s narrative is hugely positive and b) HRC comes with a lot of entrenched anti-Hillary sentiment.

    Maybe you prefer the perspective change? Where I spoke of BO diffusing GOP attacks compared to their ferociousness over HRC, Uygur says BO is an easier candidate to champion.

    Do you see a difference? I’m serious because I read Uygur’s statement as supportive of the one I argued and you disagreed with.


  2. I do see a difference.

    I don’t think Uygur is saying Obama won’t be attacked, but that he’ll be able to post more offense on his own and overcome the attacks against him. He has first-strike capabilities.

    I read your argument as one that either Obama wouldn’t be attacked or the attacks wouldn’t be as bad.

    Also, with your argument we were addressing an Obama presidency. Cenk’s argument is about an Obama candidacy. That’s where the biggest difference lies.


  3. If there’s a line there I’d say it’s a fine one. I see more offensive potential as indicative of a weaker “defense” (which is the offense of the opposing party and/or campaign).

    Let’s agree to almost agree on this one.


  4. Well I think we’re definitely in agreement now when it comes to the campaign.

    I’m not budging from my contention that the GOP will throw the kitchen sink at Obama once he’s in office. In that regard, he faces the same playing field as Clinton.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s