In a sign of things to come if Barack Obama does become the Democratic nominee, John McCain hit Obama for a statement he made in last night's debate.
First, what Obama said (h/t TPM):
"As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
McCain's predictable response:
"When you examine that statement, it's pretty remarkable. I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called `al-Qaida in Iraq,'"
To his credit, Barack Obama responded swiftly at a campaign stop in Columbus, OH today (h/t Ben Smith):
"John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq," he said."McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying, 'Well let me give you some news, Barack, Al Qaeda is in Iraq,' like I wasn't reading the papers, like didn't know what was going on." Obama said, leaning into his developing McCain impression.
He then described the context -- a hypothetical question from Tim Russert -- and said, "First of all, I do know Al Qaeda is in Iraq, and that's why I said we should continue to strike Al Qaeda targets."
"I have some news for John McCain," Obama continued, "That's there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain" began the Iraq war, he said.
"They took their eye off the people who really were responsible for 9/11," he said.
Obama and Clinton have been consistently on-message tying McCain to Bush at every opportunity and it's good to see him do so again here but this exchange points to a real problem for Obama were he to be McCain's opponent in the general: McCain's experience advantage.
Today's LA Times/Bloomberg general election match-up is the second poll in as many days to show McCain up over Obama, albeit within the margin of error (the first being the USA Today/Gallup) and the internals demonstrate why.
From USA Today:
Americans are split, 46%-46%, over whether Obama, a first-term senator, has the experience to be president. In contrast, Clinton is seen as having enough experience by 2-1, McCain by 3-1.
And from The LA Times:
McCain runs ahead of Obama on every issue except health care. The Arizona senator has a 13-point advantage on Iraq and a 37- point lead on terrorism.
Obama's strategy against McCain will, of course, be not only to tie McCain to Bush but also to use the argument he's used against Clinton, making experience actually a dirty word and making the case that judgment is more important than Washington experience. So far in the primary, Obama's lack of experience has not been a hindrance, in fact it's arguably been an asset to him but will that remain so against McCain if they are the nominees? Right now, I suspect Obama's experience deficit is the primary reason these election match-ups are even close and exchanges like the one above probably favor McCain. The problem for Obama is that over the next few months, McCain can distance himself from Bush but Obama can't gain the experience. The problem for McCain, of course, is that this country deeply hates this war.
So, I have no doubt Obama can overcome this concern among voters and we can effectively eat away at the mysterious confidence that voters who otherwise lean toward voting Democratic have in John McCain, but it's telling that these two general election match-ups that show McCain actually up over Obama, the first since January to do so, come in the wake of the recent New York Times article and deep scrutiny into McCain's lobbyist ties. That would seem to indicate that the US electorate at large may be far less susceptible to a "McCain is a part of the problem in Washington" message than Democratic primary voters have been and that turning McCain's experience into a liability may be far more difficult than we think.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 183 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
