Anybody seen the new Clinton ad, upbraiding Obama for only having agreed to 2 more debates but not one in WI? (I gather that's the principal market for the ad, though I could be wrong.)
Again, my preference is no secret, here, but even so I'm moved to ask if this doesn't seem a rather audacious and dangerous move on her part, given that she's apparently not even campaigning in WI and he is, and given all the other smaller states where that situation also would apply and her comments about them not mattering and so forth.
I mean, has this not occurred to Clinton's people, despite all the added coverage on that point about her strategy (skipping these smaller states) lately, in the wake of his string of wins in them? Or are they banking on his more civil style to pre-empt a return volley of ads run in lots of non-giant states that turn the tables on them and ask why she won't visit them or says they don't matter?
Seems like if the Obama camp were so inclined (and I'm not saying they won't be, even if they haven't, yet), they could use the same script, just changing the state name appropriately, and therby even save a bundle on production in the bargain (not that he seems in need of saving a bundle, mind you, jus' sayin's all).
Please tell me if/how this logic does not follow through, because I feel a bit whacked that nobody else seems to be saying anything like this...
Steve