For Obama: The Essence of a Counter-punch as a Defensive-Offensive Imperative
Given the permutations and variables underlying the dynamics of this election cycle, there is every chance that Barack Obama could win both the primaries and the general election to the presidency of the U.S. While on a level of generality his campaign has acquitted itself well in developing into such a formidable electioneering machine, its elemental and essential operational imperatives as well as its full potentials have not been sufficiently harnessed to maximize both tactical and strategic benefits thereof. A case in point is Obama constant tendency to take things too much for granted as to fail to grasp the essence of adversariality of American politics. He, along with his campaign have yet to come to terms with the fundamental dynamics of the rough and tumble of American politics that even if a candidate wishes to stay above the fray, a mere self-defense from the opponent's attacks will not do without a complementary counter-attack which in and of itself would approach a level of sufficiency if deployed swifly and uncompromisingly. But nonetheless it should always be devoid of any appearance of vindictiveness and nastiness often characteristic of the Hillary-types.
While it is not too late to mend, Obama should take to heart the irrefutability of the foregoing truisms and upgrade his resposive posture to include an offensive readiness to counter-punch his opponents at a moment's notice. This requires that he be conversed with all the facts and nuances in all conceptual dimensions of the campaign game. Thus, what will remain an ongoing concern as of present is the unabated risk on his part of opening himself to the danger of being defined by his opponent through these attacks without availing himself an opportunity to counter-act and neutralize the attacks so as to leave no ambiquity in the opponent's mind that while Obama will not stoop to gutter politics, he will nonetheless not take any attacks on him lying down.




