I know everyone says always the incumbent has the edge in elections, but I think the challenger does. The challenger gets to be on offense – the incumbent on defense.
Here is an example of defense:
The reason a President has a Cabinet is because he needs to delegate. He can’t do everything all the time. It would be silly to think that or expect it.
However, one question that might arise is how does a President – in a debate on foreign policy – claim ‘ownership’ of his Administration’s foreign policy without trying to look like he is taking credit for a very active Secretary of State. President Obama has a very active Secretary of State. Secretary Clinton is the one who has been circling the globe for almost 4 years (President Obama has not been a big foreign traveler.) She has surpassed Secretary of State Condi Rice in travel. Secretary Clinton has also assumed some visible responsibilities that are typically responsibilities of the President. She is the one who was left to meet with Presidents at the UN General Assembly opening two weeks (eg the President of Yemen) and even the Prime Minister of Israel because President Obama returned to Washington, DC. There may have been good reasons for him to have her talk to the other Heads of State and not him — but it is a bad p/r message for a President.
What do you think?