I’m glad for Hillary.
In regione caecorum rex est luscus.
In debates, as in many competitions, relative strengths and weakness matter more than absolutes. A good offense might be sufficient against a poor defense but insufficient against a great one.
Debates also bear a similarity to many other competitions in that necessity is the mother of invention. The natural tendency is to stick to a winning playbook and rewrite a losing one. For winners, however, the omnipresent danger is complacency – if your next opponent studies your game film enough, he or she may pick up on weaknesses to exploit next time around.
In a two-hour slugfest that started strong (economy, foreign policy) and trailed off into strangeness (including an entire segment dedicated to gamesmanship-y questions about electability), MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd slogged through issue after issue looking for differences between the candidates. Neither candidate had his or her best debate night, and…
Voir l’article original 473 mots de plus