From author -

Title coincidentally applies to TPM experience today. Rather than make another futile post attempt availing myself of un-bugged comment box

__________________________________________________

Perhaps she thinks she’s running for Chief Petty Parsing Officer and not Commander-in-Chief?

Much has been made of the ‘reject, renounce, repudiate, condemn’ waltz around, with and about Farrakhan during last night’s debate prompted by Tim Russert’s question – including on this site. Rather than focus on the question and its substance, I'll mine how it illustrates the nature of their respective campaigns and why they’re faring a certain way.

After the pretty lengthy, thorough and forceful Obama answer and Russert’s persistent time-warp fascinations, Clinton once again tone-deaf, sought what she perceived to be an opportunity to belittle it for it not having been said strongly enough -- or, more importantly to her, the way she would have said it -- complete with anecdotes and the threat of Powerpoint presentations.

C’mon people, after all the years that Farrakhan has faithfully played the debate-subject-boogeyman, if Obama really was some secret-Five-Percenter, think he’s gonna share that now? So we have come to expect the, ‘say it louders’ from the questioners – as it’s become a rite of passage. But when your fellow debater piles on, they come off looking not so great.

Obama’s final reply in this question series hit the perfect note -- revealing what she lacks while providing substance. Okay Hillary, I’ll use those two magic words together so you can feel comfort. He got to the meat of it, without being dismissive but ending on a note of wit that illustrated the utter silliness of it all. This, it seems, is a strategy that can be repeatedly applied to respond to the Clinton campaign (not just in debates) to great effect.
It seems that while she’s parsing words and processes and the sun and the moon – he is campaigning for voters.

Because certain of things – hell many of things - aren’t to Clinton’s liking:
-- Obama’s speeches - she parses while claiming words don’t matter and instead of improving hers;
-- debate question order - parses meaning of first and second while claiming she’s not bothered in any case;
-- media loyalties and coverage - parses then punishes the New York Times with quasi-petitions and by going on The 700 Club;
-- parses voters as ‘us’ and ‘them’ - so as to alienate those she should be courting.

Everything is fair game except her own campaign. If she’d applied this attention to detail to her own operation and parsed her losses a bit better she’d not be in the predicky she is.

P.S. – this gives us new insight into what the Clinton marriage must be like -- with him being and remaining the original Parser-in-Chief – those conversations must be interesting to say the least.