Was Clinton’s latest strategy- self pity combined with brute force- a good call?

I wish presidential debates were looked at more like boxing matches.



Have you ever seen a pre-fight meeting before a highly anticipated boxing match between two high profile boxers? They’re all about strategy.

The fighters stand chest to chest, sweat dripping from their furrowed brows, every muscle flexed beneath open silk robes as they stand on a stage and glare into each other’s eyes. Despite their records in the ring, you can often get a good sense about who’s going to win the impending bout by watching this interaction.

The real strategy comes in the delivery. A good boxer wants to be scary and intimidating, but not overzealous to the point of seeming insecure. Some of them stand on their chairs and yell, curse and threaten.

Others of them, however, don’t say a word. Those tend to be the scariest of all.
Barring the difference in attire, maybe boxing matches and presidential debates really are not all that different.

Tuesday’s presidential debate looked a lot like one of these pre-fight meetings and boxing match.

In what might be the final debate between Sens. Hillary Clinton(D-NY) and Barack Obama(D-IL), Clinton had two boxing strategies.

Her first was to be loud and proud. As she discussed health care and trade policies, she verbally struck down her opponent and rarely let him have the last word. Her other strategy was self pity, saying she has felt victimized in the whole process and that she hasn’t been dealt with fairly by the media.



The question widely asked afterwards was, “was her act believable?” Was this the right strategy coming into what might be her final primaries after Obama’s previous 11-win
streak?

Or should she have been the quiet, contemplative, scary opponent?

As Howard Fineman of Newsweek said after the debate, "Clinton wanted to be Joe Frazier, the relentless one, glaring across the ring for 90 minutes at the infuriating man with quick moves and tassels on his high-laced shoes. She complained about the referees, charged ahead as she had to do. She devastated him with a few power punches-but not enough of them-and didn't level him."



But perhaps it was a last-ditch effort for the struggling candidate, formerly believed to be a shoe-in to the oval office.

Peter Cannellos of the Boston Globe said, “…as the candidate who is trailing, she needed to take some risks and shake things up. In the end, she may have chafed some viewers but succeeded in taking the fight to Obama. Nonetheless, he seemed to emerge unscathed after skating through some verbal thin ice of his own."

Either way, she didn’t knock him down.

In my opinion, her strategy officially, finally, once and for all, killed her campaign.

Here’s why: The impending presidency will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the most challenging of all time, with global terrorism threats on the rise and a failing economy with the weakest dollar in history. She is standing up against a candidate who fought from the bottom, beat the odds and stands strong, while arguing about technicalities and what is fair. Clinton’s boisterous act was transparent; her eyes told a different story.

Appearing on Saturday Night Live was stepping out of the boxing ring to get a cheap shot. Maybe that happens in the entertainment wrestling circuit by brute men in masks, but not in the professional boxing arena. She only hurt her cause.
What Clinton’s latest strategy seemingly ignores and what she fails to realize, is that her bid for the nomination is a great indication of how she will act in the White House. We want a candidate like Obama; The strong, silent winner.
We don’t want a president who will stand on the global stage and argue about what’s fair. What traits was her strategy trying to display?

So is it the size of the dog in the fight or the size of the fight in the dog?
For as much as I despise cliché’s for their prosaic nature and idealistic mentality, it seems the qualities we look for in a president can really be summed up in this way.

The nomination process has evolved to its current status for a reason. It is a test of strength and will for the candidates. We don’t want to pity our president, we want to be led. We don’t need a president who will yell and scream that they’re the best and complain that no one else sees it.

We want a president who is a winner and knows it.