Big, big questions abound in the Democratic Presidential primary today. Such as: Exactly what, or who, is the Obama campaign calling "desperate" with the new Website they launched today?
This morning the news broke that the Obama camp has produced a site called DesperateHillaryAttacks.com.
This naturally gives rise to the question: Is Hillary being called desperate here? Or are her attacks being called desperate? Is "attacks" a noun or a verb here?
Well, the Obama campaign says only the attacks are being called desperate, not Hillary, presumably because the Obama camp doesn't want to open itself to the charge that it is attacking her personally:
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton denies that his campaign is calling Clinton "desperate." Rather, he insists, they are calling her attacks "desperate."
But wait! Over on DesperateHillaryAttacks.com, we find this:
As her lead in the polls shrinks, Senator Clinton's flagging campaign grows more desperate each day.
It looks as if Obama is saying that Hillary, or at least her campaign, is desperate, after all. Which means the Obama campaign may have just opened themselves up to...a potential attack.
In fairness, it should be noted that most of the site is devoted to saying that her "attacks," not her campaign, is desperate. And that gives rise to one final question which we'd love to hear from readers on: Does calling someone's attacks desperate count as an attack, too? Or does calling someone's attacks desperate fall short of an attack?
Let us know.
Late Update: I feel almost embarrassed to add this, but this post was intended as a joke -- as a spoof of the fact that the campaigns are all attacking each other relentlessly for attacking. This whole effort by all the campaigns to portray everyone but themselves as the real attacker seems to me misguided -- primaries should have conflict in them; they should be animated by aggressive disagreements.