Running Against McCain

by Todd Beeton, Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:16:37 AM EST

We know that Hillary Clinton's strategy for running against John McCain is to play up what she has in common with him -- experience, especially on national security matters -- so, it makes sense that Barack Obama would take the opposite tack, playing up his differences from McCain, returning to the meme that judgment trumps experience.

From The Huffington Post, excerpts from speech Obama will give in Denver today:

It's time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq; who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like; and who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed. [...]

We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that's exactly what I will do. Talking tough and tallying up your years in Washington is no substitute for judgment, and courage, and clear plans. It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One.

Shorter Barack Obama: "you're right Hillary, you're exactly like John McCain." Experience as liability.




Tags: 2008 presidential election, barack obama, john mccain (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 119 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

I don't really believe Hillary when she says that she'll run a national security race vs. McCain ... I mean, Hillary is many things, stupid is not one of them, and running a campaign on McCain's strength (and the only thing Republicans agree on anymore) would be remarkably dumb.

It doesn't matter who we nominate, the mantra this fall will be the same as '92 ... it's the economy, stupid.   John McCain admits he knows nothing about it ... he tends to lose Republicans when he talks about the economy and Democrats and Indies will reflexively distrust solutions from the party that got us into this mess.

Quite honestly, McCain doesn't scare me at all ... I think we've drawn the easiest candidate to beat in the GOP field, he has nowhere to go but down.  The economy is bad now and will look a lot worse in November ... we're picking the next President in the Democratic primaries.


by Dan Conley on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:21:23 AM EST

Why? (none / 0)

Why wouldn't you take her at her word? She's clearly counting on running a national security election, and she's sorely mistaken if she thinks that national security voters are going to pick her over a Republican veteran.

Hillary and Obama can both offer clear contrasts with McCain on domestic issues. Obama can offer a clear contrast in terms of foreign policy and opposition to the war. Advantage Obama.


by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:27:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why? (none / 0)

Actually, Hillary will spend the spring neutralizing McCain's strength so that she can pivot to her strengths, domestic issues like health care and the economy, in the fall.

It's just smart politics.  God forbid if we have another terrorist attack in the next nine months and voters lose all sense of rationality, we do not want the candidate who seems like a pu**y.

It's not fair, but it's reality.  


Do or do not. There is no try.
by DemJedi on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:36:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why? (none / 0)

Hillary just shows the Bush hug over and over....


by georgiast on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:40:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain is the toughest (none / 0)

the reason is character.  This election is shaping up to be about Character.  I know many people who disagree with McCain on many issues but admire his sense of integrity.  Many of who used to be called Reagan Democrats are ripe for the picking by McCain.
So many others are sick and tired of the politics of personal destruction and win at any cost which the Clintons seem to embody.

I still think Hillary could beat him but it would be a nail biter.

I believe Obama could trounce him.  Both have high levels of integrity and then the debate will be about issues.    


Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:30:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

that's funny (2.00 / 2)

The idea that Mr. Keating Five and the Senator from Rezko are paragons of integrity is only believed by the chattering classes. But, in that context, McCain's "straight talk" about Iraq will eviscerate Obama's "I was against it before I paid for it."


by souvarine on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:40:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

they all have their liabilities (none / 0)

But you've basically listed all of them for McCain and Obama. Keating and a recent story about being cozy with lobbyists for McCain, and Rezko for Obama.

Meanwhile if I sat here typing up all of the past and present scandals involving politicians named Clinton, my laptop's battery would run out.


by highgrade on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:44:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: they all have their liabilities (none / 0)

I generally agree but my scorecard is too marked up to read: Which scandals have ACTUALLY involved the Clintons in wrongdoing?

Note: I am Obama supporter.


by MNPundit on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: they all have their liabilities (none / 0)

You might be able to come up with a bunch of REPUBLICAN accusations, but I challenge you come up with actual scandals of significance.


On the train thanks to HRC...
by BRockNYC on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:46:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: they all have their liabilities (none / 0)

Ding, ding, ding!  You said the magic word - ACTUAL.  How would you rate the average voter's ability to discern between perceived scandal and actual scandal?  So which candidate has the most perceived baggage?

And republican voters?  The far right voters still think Bill and Hillary killed someone, trashed the WH and stole the silverware just for starters.  They also think Obama is a Muslim, was sworn in on the Koran and refuses to say the pledge of allegiance.    


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:09:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: they all have their liabilities (none / 0)

Clinton's been on the natioanl scene for over 16 years, Obama just came onto most people's radar screens after his speech at the convention in 2004. It's easier to find "dirt" on her because she's been around and in a position to have lots of things flung at her by the GOP for 4-5 times longer then Obama (who arguibly hasn't been in any really threatening positions against the GOP yet). So she (and Bill) has been one of the GOP's favorite targets for 16 years, while Obama hasn't even entered that stage of the game yet. Of course you're going to find bad stuff about the Clintons.

I'm really worried that Resko could just be the beginning of things if he's the nom. The GOP is good at digging up stuff, true or not. The Clinton's have learned how to counter that kind of behavior, but I'm worried that Obama might not.

I'm not saying he can't win, and certainly I can't say that he does have anything in his past aside from Resko, but if he has anything even remotely like Resko (or more about that that we don't know about) you bet the GOP will drag it up and throw it at him, and the mantra of "change" (I feel) isn't going to be good enough to coutner that kind of crap.

Long comment. Sorry. ;)


Blogging politics and life in general at jimmy.bouma-holtrop.com
by forecaster15 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:48:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain is the toughest (none / 0)

I think Obama is a stronger candidate overall against McCain, but Hillary has some advantages as well.  For one, I think Hillary would "go there" and pull out all the stops to beat McCain.  I hate to see it done that way, but if it works, let them complain about Democrats for a change.  Hillary could also potentially run stronger in the West than Obama, which I think will be this year's battleground (Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado).  A Clinton/Richardson ticket could be pretty hard to beat.


by the mollusk on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:57:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

'McCain = Trust, Integrity, Honor' IF (none / 0)

the corporate media, who love McCain and hate Hillary, are allowed to make their media-created 'character issue' be the centerpiece of the campaign. I don't think the people, the blogs, or Hillary will let them do that. The real issues are too important now, and (I hope) bloglandia will be noisy as hell when corporate media overlords like Russert try to spin the campaign.

Russert real 'character issue' is which candidate is willing to pretend with him that Social Security is in crisis. And note how bad McCain is (with real people, not with the corporate media) just on that issue alone. I hope most voters know where going along with 'Social Security sky is falling' will lead in 2009: decreased benefits.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:53:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain is the toughest (none / 0)

It's the republicans we're talking about.

The debate might be about the issues but the advertising will be about Obama's home that was paid for by Rezko who will be on trial throughout the bulk of the campaign.

... and if there is any sort of terrorist incident, it's totally over for Obama.


by kristoph on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:23:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

You don't become president by ignoring national security.  And you certainly don't base your electoral strategy entirely on what voters are thinking ten months out.  If we'd done that earlier, we'd all have said that this election would be all about Iraq.  Oh wait, we did do that.  Nevermind.


by Ryan Anderson on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:36:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

"I don't really believe Hillary [will] run a national security race vs. McCain ... running a campaign on McCain's strength ... would be remarkably dumb."

Totally agree. Running on his strengths and not her own? Stoo-pid. She built national security/defense bona fides as innoculation, but these are not game-winners.


by wolff109 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:29:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (2.00 / 1)

I don't know on what planet "experience is a liability" sells.


by GregNYC on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:27:21 AM EST

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

hahahahahahahhaa


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:28:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not The Point (2.00 / 2)

It's not that experience is a liability. It's a choice between two long-term Washington insiders. Hillary's experience argument goes out the window in a fight with McCain, he is clearly more experienced than she is. He's also perceived to be more honest, like it or not.


by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:33:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The Point (2.00 / 1)

So pick the guy with way less experience to offer a contrast?

Uh...not seeing it.


by GregNYC on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:39:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The Point (none / 0)

Change -vs- Experience

that's what this whole campaign season has been about ...it case you missed it.


by JoeCoaster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:24:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0)

I imagine that is NOT what Obama will say.


by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:00:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (2.00 / 1)

Unfortunately Obama's Svengali, the wizard behind the curtain, David Axelrod, had the people of S.C. bamboozled and hoodwinked so that only 14% thought experience mattered.


by Menemshasunset on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

Not a liability just not an advantage when both candidates have it.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:12:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Experience As Liability? (2.00 / 1)

It is for this reason that I do not support Obama.

The suggestion that you can lead more effectively because you have no leadership experience is absurd.


by kristoph on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:29:56 AM EST

Re: Experience As Liability? (2.00 / 0)

If Obama does not have the experience to lead then why would people like Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, John Kerry and so many other Senators all support him?  These are people who know him by his deeds and actions and skill, not just by his oratory.  These are also people who know intimately what is required in a President.  


by Piuma on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:38:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (2.00 / 1)

Your list answers your question, they are all fine Senators but Kennedy and Kerry were poor presidential candidates. They do not know what is required in a President.


by souvarine on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:43:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

That's just stupid. Kerry got more votes than Clinton ever did, for one thing. But, more importantly, you're conflating being able to win the presidency and knowing what it takes to be a president. There are plenty of people who intimately know what the job requires yet lack the charm, leadership, etc. to ever be a contender for president. Hillary Clinton, for example.


by DPW on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:51:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (2.00 / 1)

Well, surely it is obvious that to be President one must win the presidency. Barring a vice president, of course. We live in a democracy, not some utopian Republic governed by philosopher kings.


by souvarine on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:58:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

Oh, come on. My point is obvious. Knowing the qualifications for a job has nothing to do with being about to convince the public that you're the best person for the job. Indeed, one does even himself have to be qualified to appreciate what qualifies one for a job. For example, as a musician who's worked for years in recording studios, I'm qualified to evaluate a sound engineer's skills and work even though I'm not qualified to work as a sound engineer.


by DPW on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:06:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

"being about" should say "being able"


by DPW on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:10:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

Your point is obvious, one might call it conventional. The problem is that the presidency is a political office, and a key qualification is national appeal. Kennedy and Kerry each misunderstood that in different ways, and that is why their endorsements as Senators do not speak to whether he has the experience to be president. Those endorsements mean something ideologically, not so much regarding the experience to be president.


by souvarine on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

Well, Kerry and Kennedy help with Obama's perceived weaknesses--i.e., whether Obama has sufficient experience, training, etc. to perform the duties of office. Obama's national appeal (in terms of charm, charisma, trustworthiness, and ability to connect) have not been presented as forceful objections to his candidacy.


by DPW on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:52:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

Your entire argument is essentially that we should elect Obama not because of his policy or his leadership skill but because he is charming.

You then go on to make a person attack against Clinton.

You sir, epitomize what is wrong with the Obama candidacy.


by kristoph on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:00:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

Jesus, the line about Clinton was a little joke. And, I never said that charm was sufficient condition for being elected president; I suggested that it's a necessary condition for winning the president. Big difference.


by DPW on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:08:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

Charm?  I think that's how we got stuck with Bush. No sir, I'll take experience over charm anyday.


by lonnette33 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:11:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

Well, even if you have a very experienced candidate, you're going to need some charm. Otherwise, you lose. Bush beat Kerry and (arguably) Gore, both of whom were more experienced and competent. If we keep electing competent bores, then we'll keep losing.


by DPW on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:20:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

If we keep electing competent bores, then we'll keep losing.

Hillary is boring?  lol

Thanks for the laugh.


by lonnette33 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

My feeling is that Clinton isn't that charming as a public figure, though I imagine she is more interesting in private. I happen to like Hillary much more than Bill, actually.

My point about charm, though, has been slightly misinterpreted. I'm actually referring to a host of personal characteristics, such as likeability, charisma, trustworthiness, and some of those intangible leadership qualities.


by DPW on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:42:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

I see your point DPW. However, again I say likeability, charisma, is what got us to this mess-Bush. I'm not taking the chance this time, and I'm sure many other voters aren't either.

I like both Hill and Bill for different reasons. We never would have taken back the WH without Bill. Period. Yes, he was undisciplined and the DEMs paid a price for it, but there were other things unrelated to Bill that contributed too.
Hill on the other hand is a hard worker. Look at her record. Examine her record. I think she is trying really hard to change people like yours mind- she has a great personality and sense of humor. She's just a serious person. Nothing wrong with that. I want a serious President.


by lonnette33 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:04:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (2.00 / 0)

Ok. Ok. Peace :-)


by kristoph on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:25:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

So we have two democrats in the race, not too much difference in their platform but a significant different in style.

Is your position that charisma is a liability?


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:15:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

So what you're saying is.... Bush is a better President than Kerry?

Because that's the logical conclusion to what you just said.


by MNPundit on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

Since Kerry is not president, no. Kerry would have been a much better president, once he learned what is required in a President.


by souvarine on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:33:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (none / 0)

That doesn't follow logically, at all, from what I said. My point was that Bush's victory had nothing to do with being more qualified on paper. I probably like Kerry a lot more than many people on this site (if the harsh comments I've seen are any indication), but I wasn't surprised by his loss.


by DPW on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:47:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Experience As Liability? (2.00 / 2)

Obama, the self confessed management lightweight, is going to lots of help in governance and who better to advise then John and Ted who have been marginalized all these years by the Clintons.

Don't kid yourself about that 'change' thing. Ted Kennedy talking about change is like a hooker preaching chastity.


by kristoph on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:53:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

A Hillary/McCain/Nader election worries me.  I know Clinton supporters think she is a shoo-in to win the election, but i have a hard time seeing it in that scenario.


What would LBJ do?
by Socks The Cat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:30:01 AM EST

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

You just wait until the Minutemen get started on McCain. Jim Gilchrist for President? Wouldn't surprise me. Check out his website and that photo. Priceless!

http://www.minutemanproject.com/


by conspiracy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:46:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

I think you're correct that the base isn't jazzed about McCain, but they are positively anti-jazzed about Hillary.  The conservatives I talk to these days are pretty demoralized about McCain being the frontrunner, but as soon as the conversation turns to Hillary, it's like they got a whiff of smelling salts.  She is the singular force that can unite the Republican party this time around.


by the mollusk on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:00:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

I don't know what Hillary's strategy against McCain is, but I suspect it will have more to do with domestic policy. Many long-time Iraq war opponents misunderstand how most voters view the war, that of the Republican candidates McCain is most popular among war opponents is a mystery to them.


by souvarine on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:35:27 AM EST

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

I seriously doubt Clinton will run a national security focused campaign. Yes, Iraq will have to be an issue, but if Clinton is smart (and she is), it will be tying the war into the tanking US economy, neatly undercutting McCain's strongest talking point by linking it with his weakest.

McCain's economic credentials are terrible, and Clinton's are very good, having been linked with the surplus years of Bill's presidency and a major rebound in New York state during her Senate years. Not that she was a major part of either boons, but she was part of the crew when it happened, and that makes it a part of her credibility.

McCain will talk about fighting terrorists abroad, and Clinton will point out that it is impossible to do so effectively when you're bankrupt at home. McCain's economic plans weaken the US' ability to provide national security. That's the narrative you take.


by dexf on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:38:06 AM EST

Re: Running Against McCain (2.00 / 1)

Clinton may not be a "shoo-in," but she's not carrying the Rezco scandal liability that the GOP would certainly expand upon IF Obama was able to capture our party's nomination. Sure, there will be bombs hurled her way during the presidential campaign, but they are bombs which can be dealt with. What if Tony Rezco decides to "sing?" What if Rezco's middle east multi-millionaire associates decide to use their knowlege of the Obama/Rezco dealings as leverage in the future? It's now a two-candidate race and because of his association with this pig of a man (Rezco), Obama is a liability which the Democratic Party cannot afford to carry. We've dealt with enough scandals in our party without having to carry the burden of Obama's friendship with this unscrupulous character.


by TexasDems on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:44:11 AM EST

Rezco scandal? (none / 0)

Hell, Bill was married to Rezco (see Hillary & Rose Law Firm) and was still elected. I don't see how Rezco will hurt Obama any more then it already has.  


by JoeCoaster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

I do not believe this election will be about national security.  Even the GOP voters in the Florida primary saw the economy as far and away the #1 issue, and that will not change.

By the same token, I don't think Obama is hitting the right note here.  Democratic voters don't care very much about national security this year, and the question on their minds is not "Which candidate can challenge John McCain on national security?"  They want to know who will be the best problem-solver for the economy.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:44:20 AM EST

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

Also, I believe the exit polls showed that voters picked Romney (over McCain) as best able to deal with terrorism. That made my head spin a little.


by DPW on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:55:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

... and they picked McCain over Romney on the economy.

McCain, the man, who when asked about the economy said he is not so good with the economy, but that he has Greenspan's book (but not that he read it).

It is for this reason that I think, when looking at polls, demographics are a much better indicator of who will win then who cares about what issue.


by kristoph on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:28:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

If these people understood what it meant to be "good on the economy" or "good on national security" they wouldn't be voting Republican!  Perhaps that's the problem.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:39:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain (none / 0)

If you read some of the conservative blogs you find that, in fact, they think McCain is a closet liberal.

Hmmmm ...


by kristoph on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:45:27 AM EST

Re: McCain (2.00 / 1)

is a true moderate on most issues.

Most so-called conservatives are really moderates.

They don't believe half the things they say.  Look at their votes.  At the end of the day they wind up copying democrats more or less with a few changes.

However, he is a national security Conservative. He's a true beleiver.

I don't see any way mccain beats hillary.  

In a fair race obama would easily win, but i think obama will be crushed by the republicans, the msm? no where around to help him anymore. why? because they like divided govt. and they like mccain


by yellowdem1129 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:51:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain (none / 0)

I think that's a pretty fair characterization of the situation with a few caveats.  First, Hillary ignites a fire of hatred in people which is almost otherworldly.  I really don't understand it, and if you ask a conservative why they hate Hillary so much they just get even madder.  Personally, I think it has to do with certain expectations of women from a bygone era.  That is: look pretty, shut up, serve your man.  Hillary goes against that model and they don't like it.

I'm not sure McCain's current image can withstand an entire Presidential race.  If you watch him in interviews, he seems kind of defensive or condescending.  Plus it'd be easy to point out how much he supported George Bush in 2004 and how often he voted with the worst elements of his party.

So, I see Hillary taking McCain in a nasty, back-stabbing, low-turnout dogfight.  A large, active, involved election with lots of Independents favors McCain I think.  The question is whether that's how we think the country will move forward.  I guess if she got into the White House, a lot of that could be forgotten in a short period of time.

I just see Hillary, assuming she won, as a continuation of the DLC-approved stalemate in Washington.


by the mollusk on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:08:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (2.00 / 2)

It's called clarity. If you have two candidates who are similar, just right of center, which will America choose?

What we get with Obama vs. McCain is clarity. One for the war and one against, not one for this war and one "kind of sort of against it, depending on how the polls look today".


by commoncents on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:45:30 AM EST

Two Candidates Just Right of Center (none / 0)

Surely you jest.

McCain has a lifetime 98% (approx.) rating from the Conservative Union.

HRC has roughly 90% from ADA.

The same???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????


by borlov on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:27:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can someone pls. tell me why - (2.00 / 0)

After eight years of the Bush administration, the smart move is to elect someone who is going to "compromise" between failure and success?

You can't do that. You can't compromise your stances like Hillary has, and win.

Edwards people understand this. They were very progressive, and most of the Obama camp listened. Which is why they got the youth vote.

IMHO Obama is right on target here. Why vote for a Democratic Bush-Lite?


by Trey Rentz on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:42:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can someone pls. tell me why - (none / 0)

You do understand that it is Obama who is advertising himself as the unity candidate who will 'build a bridge' with the Republicans.

He will only be able to do that through compromise with those very Republicans he is courting.


by kristoph on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:50:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fundamental Misunderstanding (none / 0)

Obama has never suggested that he would give up any ground to the Republicans. This is a common misunderstanding. He talks more about respecting Republican voters than Republican policies or Republican politicians. His position is based on a belief that Democrats can win disillusioned Republican voters by opening a dialog with them instead of just using "Republican" as a four-letter-word.


by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:56:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fundamental Misunderstanding (none / 0)

You can't respect Republican voters unless you respect Republican policies. If you think Republican voters don't believe what they vote for then you don't respect them.


by souvarine on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:03:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My Parents Are Republican Voters (none / 0)

So are my cousins and my uncles and aunts, and so were my grandparents. I respect them, and I'd like it if our candidate respected them too.


by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can someone pls. tell me why - (none / 0)

That's not what he's saying.  He's talking about diplomacy -- we present our position in a way that the opposition can relate to.  Then we say 'Come on over'.  I've heard him say they can join us or get out of the way.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:01:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bama & Hill both r ADA 95% (none / 0)

They're exactly as (Americans for Democratic Action) liberal as each other, and far more liberal than McCain.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:44:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

contrast (2.00 / 1)

"my greatest foreign policy experience was when I was young living overseas as a child"

with

"I commanded a navy ship in battle", "I've dealt with F.P. for over 25 years in one capacity or another"
------------------------------
also...

I can 100% guarantee the War in Iraq will win votes for McCain against either Hillary or Obama.

He has been consistent. He's been indepedent . He's been critical of Bush when Bush was "wrong"
He's been supportive of Bush when he was "right".

The fact is the American people support the Iraq war in principle but felt it was mismanaged.  McCain will make the case that Obama is too inexperienced.

The swift boaters will make the case that he is dangerous and unelectable.

That's why we need Hillary. Not because she'll win the NS argument but she will lose it by less, while attacking McCain and the Republicans.


by yellowdem1129 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:48:09 AM EST

Re: contrast (none / 0)

"My greatest foreign policy experience was the time I served as First-Lady in Bill Clinton's White House.  You know, the guy that was impeached and bailed out Mark Rich."

I don't necessarily agree with that narrative, but it's hard to see it coming out any other way.


by the mollusk on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: contrast (none / 0)

You know, most women would say that being directly involved in your husbands job gives you quite a bit of experience.

(I agree with these women incidentally.)

A Clinton/McCain election will rest on women and Latino voters so McCain is not going go and attack Clinton about being the first lady. In fact, if we've seen anything, is that the Republicans are going to have a hard time attacking Clinton.

When the MSM beat up Clinton just prior to New Hampshire we had republican women coming to her defense.

He is going to attack on national security (he has everyone beat on that anyway) and he is going play defense on the economy.

Clinton has to at least hold her own on national security and win the economy argument.

Obviously, if the economy improves that will help McCain and if Iraq tanks that will help Clinton.


by kristoph on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:35:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

The point Obama is missing is that she would be using whatever equivalent experience she feels she has with McCain to neutralize him on that issue, and then best him on all the other issues.  Obama cannot win against McCain on national security - if he really wants to debate McCain on that, he will lose, no matter who was right about the war at the start (and did not have to take a stand that mattered).


by ocli on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:49:36 AM EST

Neutralizing McCain on Nat Sec (none / 0)

Agreed.  HRC doesn't WIN this issue, but is credible to most people.  BO LOSES the issue big.
Hence, advantage HRC.
by borlov on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:36:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this dem primary (2.00 / 1)

is such a mirage.  People don't realize the full extent to which the msm has given obama a pass.

On so many issues he has been allowed to give 1 sentence answers without follow-up.

You've never heard him give interviews where you get the feeling he "knows" what he's saying as opposed to memorized his positions.

This is totally distinct from Clinton and Mccain.

They are primary actors, not reacting to their staffs.

Maybe now that the debates are 1 on 1. Obama won't be able to hide as easily.  But the media is amazing in giving him a chance.

Look at Resko.  No one challenged him on his answers but in a most polite way.


by yellowdem1129 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:55:11 AM EST

Re: McCain favored to be POTUS (none / 0)

New Rasmussen poll GE out today:

McCain 48
Clinton 40

McCain 47
Obama 41

My take is that today McCain is favored to be the POTUS.

The division in the Democratic party doesnot help us in the GE

This is reality my folks.


by BDM on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:02:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain favored to be POTUS (none / 0)

This is also January.


by Cleveland John on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:22:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain favored to be POTUS (none / 0)

We're not supposed to be starting this campaign as the underdog.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:44:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ain't No Commander-in-Chief (none / 0)

Obama can be as oratorical as he wants.  Bottom line: he will never win the "Commander-in-chief" argument against McCain.


by BigBoyBlue on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:55:19 AM EST

This is a misreading of Clinton (none / 0)

She is saying she is NOT VULNERABLE on national security and thus can win on other issues - especially the economy.

Obama's turn of that is smart politics but that does not mean bloggers should repeat it as if it were true.


by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:03:08 PM EST

McCain Vs. Clinton In AZ? (none / 0)

I just want to take a second to point something out. I'm from Arizona originally. In 2006, several Arizona congressional seats flipped to the Democratic party. I suspect Clinton would lose Arizona badly in a GE against McCain, and maybe cede the state altogether. Whereas Obama would most at least campaign there and put up a good fight. If Clinton is the nominee and does indeed lose AZ, at least one of those Dem seats would probably go back into Republican hands. And this is a scenario we could see playing out in red states across the country, not just in McCain's home state. I implore my fellow Dems to please at least think about this possibility when deciding between Clinton and Obama.


by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:03:47 PM EST

Re: McCain Vs. Clinton In AZ? (none / 0)

These kinds of arguments make me question Obama supporters generally, they fixate on the weakest cases for Obama. McCain is not going to lose his home state to Obama or Clinton. It's like the argument that Obama could win Alabama or Georgia on the strength of the African American vote, it just doesn't make sense.


by souvarine on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:15:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Congressional Races (none / 0)

Dude, I am not saying Obama will beat McCain in Arizona. I am talking about him being at least competitive enough to keep us from losing congressional seats. That is hugely important, so don't use my words to attack Obama supporters in general.


by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:28:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Congressional Races (none / 0)

You make a very good point.  All of Hillary's supporters are extremely naive when it comes to Congressional races.  If Democrats lose seats in the House while electing Hillary, it will be a big black eye for her going into her first term and Republicans will be united and energized in Congress to stop any of her initiatives.  This is what happened when Republicans made a surprise pickup of House seats in 1992 even as Clinton was winning.  Republicans made sure he got nothing done.  


by Toddwell on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:47:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

Hillary will tear McCain appart on domestic issues: the economy, healthcare, education, the environment, and so on, in a way Obama simply can't becuase his message is so much more broad. On national security Hillary will do her best to negate McCain's advantage, though he will have an advantage.

For Obama his strenghth will be change, the outsider vs the insider, experience vs Judgement and so on.  But Obama on National security would be in a conciderable deficit. If another crisis comes up you better believe Republicans will run with: War Hero vs Community organizer. In any case against McCain it will be won on domestic issues, and by not seeding too much of an advantage on foreign policy, and Hillary is better on both counts.


by Christopher Lib on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:04:03 PM EST

Obama v McCain (none / 0)

The campaign that Obama would run against McCain would probably be pretty similar to the one he is running now in the primaries.  Look at that excerpt, Obama has already said all that in the primary campaign.  Obama's message has been very consistent.  It is just a matter of which portions of it are emphasized.


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:05:21 PM EST

Agreed (none / 0)

And if Obama can win against Clinton, I think he's got a shot against McCain. It's been a particular hard-fought primary, and Obama has done remarkably well.


by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:14:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agreed (2.00 / 1)

I agree with you here. Obama is running a remarkable campaign and definitely would have a shot against McCain should he win the nomination.


by souvarine on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:20:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agreed (none / 0)

I think that Obama would beat McCain, not handily, but he would beat him.  Obama could pick off some reasonable evangelicals (of the Ric Warren suburban school) and Wall Street types.  However, McCain has a lot of across the aisle respect and likeability and Obama would still have difficulty with older White voters.  Picking someone like Webb as VP would mute some national security concerns.  

The thing with Obama is that the more voters see him, learn more about him and become more comfortable with him, the more his numbers go up.  In my opinion, this is because he has the right message for 2008.  I wish that Super Tuesday was a week or two later than February 5.  


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agreed (none / 0)

I enthusiastically agree with you about the virtues of Webb as VP running with Obama.  He is not only strong on national security, and young, but an economic populist and makes a victory in Virginia a definite possibility.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:31:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama v McCain (none / 0)

Obama can bring in new voter's to the process, especially young voter's, Clinton cannot.

Their would really be a contrast of future vs past in a Obama/McCain election.

A Clinton/McCAIN ELECTION WOULD BE AN OLD ESTABLISHMENT INSIDE wASHINGTON ELECTION. nOT VERY EXCITING.


by BDM on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:16:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama v McCain (none / 0)

Hope versus fear would also be a very pronounced theme against McCain.

One thing that I think would help Clinton against McCain is the more likely entry of Bloomberg into the race.  In a three way general election, I do not see how Clinton can lose.  I also think that she would beat McCain straight up but it would be tight.


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:53:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama v McCain (none / 0)

Have you looked at the female turnout numbers in the primaries, yet?


by hwc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:19:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama vs the voters (none / 0)

-It is just a matter of which portions of it are emphasized.

And who buys his double talk and hypocrisy.

I think voters are much smarter than that.


by lonnette33 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:16:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama v McCain (none / 0)

Except for the small issue of negative campaigning.

Clinton cannot start running Rezko/drugs advertising in California but the Republican's can and will do that.


by kristoph on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:39:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks to lonnette33... (none / 0)

I think voters are much smarter than that.


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

"We know that Hillary Clinton's strategy for running against John McCain is to play up what she has in common with him -- experience, especially on national security matters..."

When did she announce her strategy against McCain? I didn't hear it. Please enlighten me. Hillary is too smart to fall for that trap. I think we need to let Hillary speak for herself. And Bill Clinton needs to shut up a bit.


by lonnette33 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:14:33 PM EST

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

The Republican's have settled on their nominee and will be united.

The democrats have not settled on a nominee and they are real division's in the democratic party.


by BDM on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:19:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

-The democrats have not settled on a nominee and they are real division's in the democratic party.

Hill's prepared to fight her way to the nomination. Check back with me on Feb. 6th.


by lonnette33 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

On Iraq:

Hillary - I would like to end war in Iraq, but make sure we plan it properly.

McCain - Bush didn't fight the war in Iraq the right way.  We should double the troops, but other then that 100% with Bush.  We should stay in Iraq indefinitely.

Public - 70% want us out if Iraq, but not too hastily.

Sounds to me like Hillary is on the side of majority.

The only time McCain makes any sense is when he is in front of a partisan town hall.  To general public his positions will be totally out of whack and I am sure Hillary will have no problems with him.


by comebackkid on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:41:36 PM EST

Cut through the clutter (none / 0)

Why not just cut through the clutter: We don't have to guess anymore. We have actual votes from millions of voters in the fourth largest state in the country.

Whoever wins Florida wins the general election:

Clinton: 857,208
McCain: 693,508
Romney: 598,188
Obama: 569,041


by hwc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:53:00 PM EST

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

Hillary's 'Experience' claim won't work against McCain. She loses that argument.


by rikyrah on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:54:56 PM EST

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

Will you still be saying that if she's the nominee. The transparency of you Obamanauts is both silly and obvious. But then I suppose you won't be voting for her anyway on principle.  


by ottovbvs on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

I'll vote for her in the general b/c her judgement is superior to McCain's, even if inferior to Obama's.  But there is no doubt that McCain has much more experience than any of our candidates.  Just like Cheney and Rumsfeld and any other number of republicans who are fatally wrong on the issues.  Her "35 years of experience" line doesn't work as well when McCain can mention that 35 years ago he was a POW and has since served in Congress for decades.  


by HSTruman on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:15:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

Experience is not an existential attribute. Experience is what allows a candidate to run rings around McCain in debates on a wide range of topics from national security to the economy.


by hwc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:43:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

As a man who is also a Democrat, I would rather roll the dice with Hillary in the GE rather than hoping Obama could win.

As I see it,apart from the War, there will be 2 main issues in the back of voters minds-

1)Roe V Wade risk to women if McCain wins and
  one of the SCt justices dies--This is crucial

2)Domestic Economy

Like it or not, the issue of "Experience" WILL become front and centre by November due to economic risk as well as terrorism risk--My hunch is that Obama would be crucified if he was our nominee--this is simply TOO dicy a time to take a flyer on the unknown

I also think that HRC will win a greater % of the Women's vote than might be currently imagined

fwiw-I happened to be reading the 2008 Astrp Forecast put out by Ray Merriman in mid Dec--He went through all the astro aspects in eveyone's chart re November and came to the conclusion that only McCain and HRC's charts were favourable--Obama's was not for eg.

His astro projection is that its HRC vs McCain and that HRC wins in a squeaker that is right up there with Bush/Gore result as to the definition of 'squeaker'


by ionsys on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:55:13 PM EST

Re: up-dated Gallup tracking poll Jan. 27-29th (none / 0)

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama has now cut the gap with Hillary Clinton to 6 percentage points among Democrats nationally in the Gallup Poll Daily tracking three-day average, and interviewing conducted Tuesday night shows the gap between the two candidates is within a few points. Obama's position has been strengthening on a day-by-day basis. As recently as Jan. 18-20, Clinton led Obama by 20 points. Today's Gallup Poll Daily tracking is based on interviews conducted Jan. 27-29, all after Obama's overwhelming victory in South Carolina on Saturday. Two out of the three nights interviewing were conducted after the high-visibility endorsement of Obama by Sen. Edward Kennedy and his niece Caroline Kennedy.

Clinton's lead in the three-day average is now 42% to Obama's 36%. John Edwards, who dropped out of the race today after Gallup conducted these interviews, ended his quest for the presidency with 12% support. Wednesday night's interviewing will reflect the distribution of the vote choice of former Edwards' supporters as well as the impact, if any, of Hillary Clinton's popular vote win in Florida on Tuesday.


by BDM on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:00:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

Well at least we're admitting that both candidates are a gamble vs. McCain

Take a look at the latest Rasmussen, showing him 8 points up on Clinton and Six points up on Obama. We're starting an election we were supposed to be winning, as the underdog.

Anybody wanna guess why?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/john_mccain_match_ups/ election_2008_mccain_vs_clinton_and_obam a


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

Interesting that Clinton has based her candidacy on experience and ready to lead on day one, and now looks to be going up against the 70+ ex-POW war hero McCain. She better pray that things stay relatively quiet on the international from, because she clearly wins if "it's the economy, stupid", but in any other scenario, I think the going gets pretty tough for her.


by dmc2 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:02:05 PM EST

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

And even rougher for him.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:04:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We don't know at all. (none / 0)

Todd you're being a bit presumptous in deciding "how' Clinton is going to run against McCain. Why don't we get the primary out of the way and then leave it up to her. As for the supposed experience argument I was under the impression Obama claims he has as much as her.  


by ottovbvs on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:06:11 PM EST

Obama's judgement equals.... (none / 0)

Tony Rezko. Game over. Welcome, President McCain.

The media loves McCain even more than Obama. Without the media accommodating and amplifying Obama's every whiny hissy fit he is toast. Hillary doesn't need the media's blessing to win.


by ineedalife on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:10:11 PM EST

Re: Obama's judgement equals.... (none / 0)

Truly depending on the fickle media is not a good idea. I like the idea that Hillary has beaten the media narrative.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

The primaries will tell us what we need to know about this argument, IMO.  If Obama can't sell it about Clinton, it has no chance of working against McCain, who the press loves.


by BDB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:13:54 PM EST

Re: Running Against McCain (none / 0)

The MSM has already decided that John McCain is the next President.

They