Dems in Dilemma: To Attack or Not to Attack?

With the Democratic party convention underway in Denver, the pundits are out in full swing. Many on the Democratic team believe that its time to attack,  — Kerry didn’t attack enough, Democrats need to respond with attacks etc. Several of these “attack dogs” seemed to be pretty disappointed with day 1 of the convention and are dreading that the remaining days will remain attack free.

There is a very interesting piece in the NY Times which addresses this dilemma and recommends a strategy.

At the core, Obama’s best message has always been this: He is unconnected with the tired old fights that constrict our politics. He is in tune with a new era. He has very little experience but a lot of potential. He does not have big achievements, but he is authentically the sort of person who emerges in a multicultural, globalized age. He is therefore naturally in step with the problems that will confront us in the years to come.

Its a very nicely written article. When you read this article you get the feeling that the author David Brooks (despite being a conservative) actually likes Obama and wouldn’t mind seeing him getting elected!

Given that the Democrats have been repeatedly beaten by the Republicans in the game of attack, it can be very tempting for the Democrats to go on the offensive. But David Brooks does raise some interesting points when he argues that differentiating is more important than simply attacking.

Author: Pran Kurup

Pran Kurup is founder and CEO of Vitalect, Inc.

%d bloggers like this: