Tweet
In Chess a gambit is when you sacrifice a piece for position in an attack. This is all well and good when it leads to a victory - however should the gambit fail it will certainly lead to a quick defeat. By staging an all out frontal assualt on the opponents King you open up his defenses - but should not succeed in capturing the King - you have greatly reduced yours to the point that any small counter attack will succeed.
Clinton sacrificied any chance she has of getting Black votes with a full scale attack on Obama's church and past pastor. That vote is now off the board for her during the rest of these primaries. She is hoping that the White male vote will now be enough to vanquish Obama. The question she is asking White males to consider is "Whom do you trust more - a Black man who has consistently heard racist remarks from Black leaders in the past or a White woman who has consistently heard racist remarks from White leaders."
That's the point of her attack. But in chess an attack has to be coordinated with other pieces. A lone knight or rook wouldn't be very effective. But if you put them together in a unit they can be. The rest of her attack is to say Obama is all talk and no action - doesn't have experience - can't win in big states - may harbor some muslim feelings - and is naive about politics.
She had tried to make the last five her major attack points earlier and found she was getting no where fast. It wasn't until the racial attacks took hold did she gain any traction. Her campaign had tried the racial attack earlier and been rebuffed - it actually hurt her and made her look mean spirited. It has succeeded now by pandering to the worst fears of White America - that a Black man in charge may seek reprisals against Whites for hundreds of years of ill treatment.
Obama can't address all six issues at once. A hungry media asks all six questions repeatedly and then says he's becoming evasive when he doesn't answer in rapid fire fashion. He might succumb to the pressure. Then again he might not.
Clinton's real issue with her attack style is that she can't hide from her own offense. She has to come out to support her pieces and when she does she is vulnerable to counter attacks. While she has made great strides in polls - she is losing in the one that matters - delegate count.
Without a winning strategy in place she is exposed for what she is. A losing candidate so desperate to win a nomination she would risk killing a party for her own gain. Her campaign members have lied to get to this point. Releasing an Obama muslim memo, stating incorrectly who was winking on NAFTA, delaying her schedule which shows how clearly she supported NAFTA during Bill's white house run.
Each primary brings her closer and closer to the inevitable. Standing up in the middle of a convention and saying - Let me have the nomination even though people didn't vote for me to get it. Oh it looks good now - but the voters of America will have their say.
Worse for Clinton, the gambit, has cost her all credibility among not just African Americans but intellectual Americans. Those with higher educations are voting for Obama in droves. In addition, people are coming into the party just to make sure she doesn't win - people who would never vote for her even if she steals the nomination.
Unfortunately for Clinton, she was defeated by her own game plan. Her tactics early on have come back to bite her. Her waste of resources in an inane strategy to court less than 14 squares of a chess board that has 64 will forever be taught as stupidity 101.
Had she only asked a chessplayer they would have told her to win the game you have to control the center of the board. The fringe attacks look good for a while but the center is where the game is won or lost. You have to win delegates.
Clinton sacrificied any chance she has of getting Black votes with a full scale attack on Obama's church and past pastor. That vote is now off the board for her during the rest of these primaries. She is hoping that the White male vote will now be enough to vanquish Obama. The question she is asking White males to consider is "Whom do you trust more - a Black man who has consistently heard racist remarks from Black leaders in the past or a White woman who has consistently heard racist remarks from White leaders."
That's the point of her attack. But in chess an attack has to be coordinated with other pieces. A lone knight or rook wouldn't be very effective. But if you put them together in a unit they can be. The rest of her attack is to say Obama is all talk and no action - doesn't have experience - can't win in big states - may harbor some muslim feelings - and is naive about politics.
She had tried to make the last five her major attack points earlier and found she was getting no where fast. It wasn't until the racial attacks took hold did she gain any traction. Her campaign had tried the racial attack earlier and been rebuffed - it actually hurt her and made her look mean spirited. It has succeeded now by pandering to the worst fears of White America - that a Black man in charge may seek reprisals against Whites for hundreds of years of ill treatment.
Obama can't address all six issues at once. A hungry media asks all six questions repeatedly and then says he's becoming evasive when he doesn't answer in rapid fire fashion. He might succumb to the pressure. Then again he might not.
Clinton's real issue with her attack style is that she can't hide from her own offense. She has to come out to support her pieces and when she does she is vulnerable to counter attacks. While she has made great strides in polls - she is losing in the one that matters - delegate count.
Without a winning strategy in place she is exposed for what she is. A losing candidate so desperate to win a nomination she would risk killing a party for her own gain. Her campaign members have lied to get to this point. Releasing an Obama muslim memo, stating incorrectly who was winking on NAFTA, delaying her schedule which shows how clearly she supported NAFTA during Bill's white house run.
Each primary brings her closer and closer to the inevitable. Standing up in the middle of a convention and saying - Let me have the nomination even though people didn't vote for me to get it. Oh it looks good now - but the voters of America will have their say.
Worse for Clinton, the gambit, has cost her all credibility among not just African Americans but intellectual Americans. Those with higher educations are voting for Obama in droves. In addition, people are coming into the party just to make sure she doesn't win - people who would never vote for her even if she steals the nomination.
Unfortunately for Clinton, she was defeated by her own game plan. Her tactics early on have come back to bite her. Her waste of resources in an inane strategy to court less than 14 squares of a chess board that has 64 will forever be taught as stupidity 101.
Had she only asked a chessplayer they would have told her to win the game you have to control the center of the board. The fringe attacks look good for a while but the center is where the game is won or lost. You have to win delegates.
Comment