Stray thought
I find it interesting that on election nights the Obama camp sends out surrogates to the cable networks (Dodd, McCaskill, etc,) while the Clinton camp sends out campaign staff (McAuliffe, Wolfson.)
On the one hand, you're trusting your message to surrogates, but on the other hand, nobody in the campaign has to go on the record on difficult questions in the heat of the battle.
On the one hand, you're trusting your message to surrogates, but on the other hand, nobody in the campaign has to go on the record on difficult questions in the heat of the battle.
posted by mikevotes at
6:10 AM
3 Comments:
It also says something that there are sufficiently trustworthy and high-profile surrogates available to Obama whereas Clinton is essentially sending out paid spokespersons.
Testimonials beat conventional advertising in my opinion.
By
Praguetwin, at 8:50 AM
That's an interesting point.
She could go back to Ed Rendell, maybe? He's about the highest profile campaign outsider that still seemed willing to speak for her. (Of course, you never know what might come out of his mouth.)
It's also been interesting to watch McCaskill get better and better at it.
By
mikevotes, at 11:03 AM
I suppose Rendell fails the "trustworthy" test.
I think it is interesting that you noticed this: the fact that Clinton has to pay for her testimonials says so much on so many levels.
By
Praguetwin, at 5:26 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home