As the Republican Party hunkers down and get down to business of winning the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election with their "last man standing" candidate John McCain, the Democrats are still on a slugfest between presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. True to the cliche, "the battle lines have been drawn in the sand" Clinton and Obama are bringing opposite styles of politics to the election arena. For Obama, he brings with him a theory of what governance should and must be when and if he wins the presidency. He believes "the voters are tired of the partisan paralysis of the past 20 years and he could inspire a grass-roots movement with a new kind of leadership, he could ride it to the White House and end gridlock in Washington (Brooks, 2008)." On the other hand, Clinton is sticking her guns with the brand of politics she has known ever since – traditional politics. This kind of politics is based on "throwing punches, taking the gloves off or embarking on a knife fight" that could well be her only means of winning the Democratic presidential nomination.
             For some of Obama's detractors, they believe that he should get off his high horse and get his shining armor dirty by engaging Clinton in a political battle that has long been known to most voters – dirty and downright nasty. This kind of political battle means that Obama cannot "really win with the new style of politics...sooner or later, [he has] to play by the conventional rules (Brooks, 2008)." Reality set in when during the Texas and Ohio, Obama lost to Clinton because as one interpretation takes it Clinton's tactical attacks worked well in undermining the squeaky clean image Obama is trying to nurture amongst the electorate.
             Obama's handlers eventually realized that the "new kind of politics" their candidate has been endorsing may be big on rhetoric but lacks the "meat&qu...