He'll CONTINUE the FAILED policies of George W. BUSH.

I don't care what the issue is, he'll be continuing the failed policy.  Whatever the issue is, the current policy is one that has failed or is in the process of failing.

She nails him on bread and butter economic concerns.

What happened in this primary is Hillary ran Bill's 1996 campaign.

People are claiming that she would run a 1996 campaign against McCain because his age mirrors Bob Dole's. But what Hillary does against McCain is re-create the 1992 campaign.

She picks a VP with foreign policy credentials. I think Wesley Clark works well. She runs on jobs/health care and repeats McCain's line about being in Iraq for 100 years.

She would have her work cut out. But she could win, and win comfortably.

Turnout.

Turnout.

Turnout.

and voter registration.

I've been honest about my feelings before.  I'm a HRC supporter, but there's things I like a lot about Obama.  There's also things I don't like Obama, and there are things that I like about McCain.  That said, there are substantial differences in policy that would make it next to impossible for me to even ponder a McCain vote, barring a macaca * 10 moment from Obama.

That said, I do think a lot of people are underestimating McCain to a certain respect.  We talk about how this election is the perfect situation for us, and I'm not so sure it's as sound as it may seem.  Nevertheless, this has been discussed ad nauseum.

So, what's the narrative?  I think we have the benefit of knowing what the script would be if Obama loses to McCain, namely, the loss of independents and Nader peeling off some left wing votes, while McCain is able to mobilize the base.

So, do we go the route of getting our base going?  If so, I think this requires an economic focus, and this has been my one concern about Obama.  I'm not sure if he's able to sell the Democratic economic vision as capably as HRC and Edwards have.  Even in a climate that should ensure support for us economically, you still have to sell it, and I worry.

I would fashion the narrative on how our economic packages, which, let's be honest, isn't that much different no matter which candidate you support, is the right one short term and long term.  I'm not a political junkie, so I don't know how specifically to make that happen.  I do believe that Obama would need to bring in a seller, an Edwards-level seller as the VP.  Any economic vision has to address short term focuses to be able to win the election.

I think foreign policy is an issue that can be challenged.  I wouldn't go the route of Iraq, but rather, just broad based global politics.  Here's the dangerous point.  I'm not so sure how effectively we can get into a discussion on opening lines of communication without opening a level of opportunity for McCain to pounce on.  I'm not sure how effectively a Democratic nominee can challenge NAFTA, as the realities of the situation dictate a far different answer from campaign rhetoric.

Eh, very disjointed thoughts here.

McCain is weak in National Security.  He is clueless on Iraq and the nature of war there--of AQI, Al Queda, Iran, Sunni vs Shiites.

He is in bed with lobbyists.

He does not understand the economy.

He thinks Islamic extremism is the main problem--when invading Iraq made the threat worse---because if Sadr is one of the islamic extremists--he now controls Iraq and Iran is stronger now of the the invasion.

The left should start framing McCain.  There should be you tubes going virally on why McCain will be bad for America.

Odds are that the man is smart enough to surround himself with top notch, fiscally-conservative advisers to supply him with talking points.  Combine that with his sort of Reagan-like charm and he might just give a befuddled smile and let any attack glide off of him.

We need to catch him severely off guard, and I think the masterstroke is to ask him to differentiate his economic beliefs from Bush in a debate.  Apparently, people don't perceive him as a continuation, but any ignorance of how Bush screwed up and how to fix it will demonstrate McCain has absolutely no clue how to approach things.  Might they start equating them?  Maybe.

The economy.  Fight it on two prongs.  

One, tie McCain to both his admission that he doesn't know as much about the economy as he should, while hammering the point that his current support for the Bush tax cuts is based upon his belief that in this current economic state, keeping those cuts permanent is the best way to stimulate the economy.  How will that play for the working class voters in OH, PA, WV, etc?

Two, you can fight the battle over Iraq by tying the expenditures in Iraq to the current economic downturn.  Sure, Senator McCain, maybe the "surge" is working in Iraq.  But at what cost?  

...a productive, future looking, nonrebarbative post from the owner of this site. More of these please. Maybe democrats can think about beating McCain rather than beating up each other

So McCain and Clinton share qualites 1,2,3 so i would have to assume He'd win that battle becuase as wrong as he is, he has more leadership and washington experian, Obama can win 1,2,3 by arguing he is a new take on those issues which is born out by his strength in 6,7,8 and i would imagine is great on 5 too.

Don't hit him where he's weak.  Hit him where he's strong.  

Hitting him where he's weak doesn't change people's view all that much.  They're STILL going to think he lacks vision, a drive for change, and a mainstream stance on Iraq.

Hitting him where he's strong, and doing it well enough to count, will make people think not only the above, but also that he's also a weak leader, doesn't work well with both parties, and doesn't have the experience to be president.  

And who will vote for THAT guy?

I think it is going to all be about the collapse of the economy by the time the late campaign rolls around.  I keep seeing this election as Hoover versus Roosevelt, things seem to be approaching that level of lousy.  Whichever Democrat wins the nomination I think can seize this campaign by elucidating a strong and creative economic plank.  I have not seen that out of either campaign; there seems to be a certain timidity there, but I am sure that any candidate who can capture the imagination of voters as far as making some basic changes to our economy (not just these stupid nyah nyah NAFTA arguments) will beat McCain in the general.

would beat both Obama and Hillary and that is because they are beating up on each other rather than attacking McCain.

But the reality is that there are many more months until the general election and MANY things could happen that COULD impact the election:  the stock market could get worse or even crash; gas prices could skyrocket; Iraq could fall apart, a natural disaster could happen; McCain could have a Big gaffee; the debates could affect people's minds; the media could start to vet McCain more closely, and so on and so on...

Again there are 8 MONTHS until the election.  MANY THINGS CAN HAPPEN IN EIGHT MONTHS

Each day, the point needs to be hammered that McCain's policies are really no different than Bush; And we have to keep pressing every hour, on how McCain would do things differently than Bush on the economy and health care.  Just saying "McBush" isn't going to do it.

Iraq is really a losing issue unless US casualaties go up to 100 a month.  Part of Congress' low approval ratings was too much a fixation on Iraq and not enough emphasis on domestic issues.  It would have been easier to draw a contrast with Bush and McCain.

is if there was a Clinton/Obama ticket.

That would REALLY drive up the Dem base.

Can someone, anyone, anyone, tell me why Democrats should concede Iraq to John McCain?  Only speaking for myself, I joined this party because I was so upset by this country's rush to invade Iraq.  How we got into Iraq is the fundamental reason this country has been going down the tubes.  I don't understand this at all.  I would rather lose fighting on Iraq, than win on platitudes about helping the working man.

This is crap.

What's the effective narrative being formed?  There is no effective narrative being formed.  Everyone's so absorbed in the primary and beating one another up (and throwing everyone under the bus) that McCain could win as the default option in November, much like he won the Republican nomination.

The key is the economy. Continue to hit him on the fact that the cornerstone of his economic package is the continuation of that tax policy that he had the good sense to vote against at the time but flip-flopped into supporting in order to secure the republican nomination.  Continue the work that is already being done to paint a McCain administration as a third term for Bush's policies.  Bush has already led us to two recessions.  Why would McCain want to use these policies as a model of success?

Contrast it to the democratic approach of responsible government, highlighting the deficit reduction act of '93 -- legislation that McCain (and every other republican in the entire congress) voted against and republican leaders claimed would plunge the country into legislation -- which ushered in the greatest economy in American history.

Argue that McCain wants to "stay the course" on the economy.  Point out that democrats have proven that they can do better.

This is another example of why I keep getting pissed at Hillary.

The guy is nothing but a neocon in a lobbiest pocket, yet she keep saying the McCain is CIC material.

Bull-crap!

She needs to hit him his qualifications. Every issue, every topic.

If he is so great?  Why did he mess up the Iran/AQ issue so many times?

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran?

Iraq for 100 years?/

But no, Hillary keeps building up McCain.

two answers:
health care (good for us) and immigration (bad for him).

if we are lucky enough to get a rel crack at an issue campaign we will own him. Though I have my doubts at how effectively Obama will be able to push a policy versus a personal narrative. But it we get to policy, I think that many of those numbers will fall. McCain can't get Republicans behind him on immigration. He is hoping we do not talk about it but I expect Democrats to keep drawing this question as they also talk about economic issues. It is the lynchpin between foreign and domestic issues.

"Mrs. Clinton's advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama's association with Pastor Wright would doom their party in the general election."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/pol itics/20memo.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&a dxnnlx=1205978784-DYODfocUf+PREVvCwoyFsg

What a shame to see my U.S. Senator reduced to that sort of campaign strategy.  The superdelegates need to put Hillary out of her misery, soon.    
 

If we want to turn the narrative on McCain, we need to start as soon as possible. That means ending this primary right away.

I wish all of the superdelegates would just announce their support for Clinton tomorrow, and Al Gore could tell Obama to take a seat on the back bench, where he belongs. He is so manifestly corrupt that even having him on television is destroying our chances of winning in the fall.

Only Clinton -- nobody else, only Hillary Clinton -- can possibly save us.

---
Only Clinton -- nobody else, only Hillary Clinton -- can possibly save us.
---

Don't be a drama queen.

ANy of are candidates are better than McSame.  We actually have to start confronting him rather than kbuilding him up.

Gag me with a f'n spoon.

I kept wondering to myself --- why was it that I stopped hanging out at MyDD?

And then I remembered after someone on MSNBC reminded viewers yesterday.

If you didn't catch it, they stated:   "MyDD supports Hillary Clinton"

---- NOW I remember.    This place may have some Obama supporters, but it is freakin run by Hillbots!!!

Well.   Carry on with your mission to elect the unelectable.     If she somehow slips in, you'll be pouting in November.

As for the rest of us ---- GO OBAMA !!!!!!!!!

I think either Obama or Hillary should focus on the economy and health care as the main issue. This is what most people care about--bread and butter concerns that affect their everyday lives.

I agree that neither Obama nor Hillary should "concede" Iraq to McCain. Far from it. McCain wants a Hundred Year War in Iraq, and will be looking to start new ones in Iran and who knows where else. We want to get out of Iraq as expeditiously as possible, and avoid any new wars unless absolutely necessary.

I don't think it makes sense for either Democrat to claim that McCain does not have the experience to be President. The man has been a Senator forever. Nor do I think it makes sense to attack his character or ethics. He is a friggin' POW war hero to most people, and he sponsored McCain-Feingold. Most voters will not like hearing him labelled a sleazebag in the pockets of the lobbyists (even if it is true). Nor would I push the "he's just like Bush" argument. Again, rightly or wrongly, McCain is seen as a bi-partisan, as a member of the "gang of 14," and as an independent "maverick" who stood up to Bush in the 2000 primaries and on tax cuts and torture.

If Obama is the nominee, then a big focus should be made on winning VA. If Obama can do that, and hold the Gore states, any other one state pickup will put him over the top. Take Clark or Webb as the VP candidate (a tough military guy to appeal to the military voters), and camp out there if necessary to ensure large African American, youth, and, for want of a better word, yuppie turnout. Also, make a big push to reach the voters in the southwest part of the state who are normally Democrats, but who rejected Obama en masse despite his blowout primary win statewide.

Otherwise, I think Obama should continue to stress the "change" theme. I am young, idealistic and vigorous. I want to make things better. My opponent is old, tired, has been in Washington too long. Etc. Etc. It's worked well for him so far, and might carry the day in Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, and/or Nevada. I don't think Obama should try to get too deeply into the issues against McCain with respect to foreign or domestic policy. Instead, he should keep it "macro" like he's done so far against Hillary. Let the campaign itself be a big part of the deal (the rallies, the college kids, the facebook stuff, the blogs, and so on), and rely on his star power, his compelling life story, and his oratorical skills.

If Hillary is the nominee I think her focus should be on carrying the upper South/border region where Gore and Kerry got beaten. The states she can put in play are Ark, MO, Tenn, Ky, Ohio, and WV. Here is where residual loyalty to Bill Clinton, Hillary's appeal to more conservative, rural voters, and her bread and butter economic platform might carry the day. Hillary might also try to parlay her Latino support into victories in NM and/or Nevada.

Obviously, Hillary's personal style will be much different from Obama's. She must argue that she matches McCain in experience (I think she can). She should also get all wonky on McCain, and show in the debates and elsewhere that he doesn't really know what he is talking about, or is getting too old to remember.

Look at Obama's response to Iraq today. He went right at McCain for trumping up minor tactical gains while ignoring strategic failures. He concedes NOTHING to McCain.  

What has HRC done? Concede that McCain is ready to be Commander-in-Chief.

Say what you want about the two candidates, but you cannot win a general election when you concede national security to your opponent. Would McCain concede health care or the economy to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? Of course not.  

Obama fights hard. He took on the Wright issue with one of the greatest speeches on race we'll ever see from a politician. And he refused to throw Wright under the bus while repudiating his remarks.

Who else would do that? Who has that courage? The NYT editorial page, which endorsed Clinton, even titled its editorial "Profile in Courage."  Maybe it won't work in the end and the lingering worries about angry negroes in Obama's past will sink him. But he took this issue head on in ways that caught a LOT of people's attention.

The economy is the key. Maybe the great ex-middle class can finally be convinced not to vote against its own financial interests.

In a debate on the economy either democrat should be able to beat him to a pulp, but the Republican scam is always to say "tax cuts" even though they're paving the way for the corporations to screw the great majority of their voters. If only there were a way to get it through the thick skulls of middle America that they're being robbed blind.  

Hillary will lose just as bad if not worse, I don't get why people like you and Jerome who seem smart otherwise, can't seem to grasp the fact that if Obama's done are only chance is a third option, possibly Gore. The reason behind my belief is the evidence in the latest Gallup/USA Today Poll which has her as untrustworthy by 5 to 6 points, I quite simply cannot believe that the United States will elect someone with a 50%+ Untrustworthy rating, especially if they also belive by a 50%+ margin that said person will put America on the wrong track.

The public doesn't even want to think about it, and Bush will make sure it stays out of the news.  If Obama is the nominee, it won't do him any good to brag about what a genius he was in 2002.  The public initially supported the war.  They don't need a Democrat rubbing their noses their poor judgment.  McCain has decided to keep  telling us that we're winning, and he'll probably get away with it.  I think Obama's Jeremiah Wright baggage might make him unelectable, but at the very least it severely undercuts his whole "unity" message.  To have any chance in November he needs drop all that rhetoric and start "focusing like a laser beam" (Bill Clinton, 1992) on the economy.  And be specific.

The tie to Bush, his advanced age, and his general belligerence.

Have we learned nothing? In today's politics, you attack a candidate's STRENGTHS, not his weaknesses. For a politician, a strength is not a weapon, it is an asset to be defended.

Attack McCain on:

1. Experience. Belittle his senate achievements, his narrow focus on armed services.

2. Decisiveness and leadership. Find instances of vacillation, craven behaviour.

3. Bipartisanship. Show how he's stubborn, only reaches across the aisle to take.

I think Obama gets this, it seems Hillary does not. Do we?

they key is to back McCain into a corner and into defending his new found conservaticism -- smoke him  out of "McCain the Moderate" hole while the entire country is watching.  Hammer him on the stuff that will give his donors the vapors and where the majority of Americans clearly think conservatives are off the rail --
stem cell research
genuine healthcare reform
the Bush tax cuts
Roe vs Wade
Assault weapons
Toll the war is taking on the economy
and make him explain how specifically he is different from GW

As long as the discussion stays focused on Iraq, national security, immigration and broad economic policies he can baffle the GE with bullshit -- say what both conservatives and moderates want to hear.  (witness his double-speak on Iraq)

He's going to convince the GE it's not Bush's policies that were bad -- he's going to create a wormhole where GW was awesome but he's not GW -- something for almost everyone.  Pin him down point by point to explain how exactly he would have done things differently than Bush.

I think he will do better on Iraq than most liberals would think.  There's no traction out there for "wrong from the beginning/got us into this mess".  People are only concerned about getting us out of this mess and growing more confused every day by how to do that.  

all that said -- the key really is turn-out.  It's ALWAYS turn-out.  

Of course McCain looks good now.  No one is campaigning against him.

You have the two Dems whacking each other over the head, and McCain just sailing along.  If we already had a nominee, I think we could have made a very nice week of his recent comments about Iran supplying Al Qaeda.  But we don't and we didn't.

That's going to change.  I don't think the American people want four more years, or a more warlike foreign policy.

Jerome, it isn't that I disagree with your analysis of these numbers, but I do think they are irrelevant in a vacuum; which is how you have presented them.

How does Hillary stack up when the same questions are asked?

How does Obama?

These are relevant questions in determining how people would vote, our GE chances, and what our candidates need to be doing.  

I wonder what the percentage of the people polled would have been on Q1, "Has the right experience to be president", if HRC wasn't out there telling everyone that he has "crossed the CIC threshold".

Pretty powerful endorsement when one of your main opponents says you're ready to be president. But it got her a bump in OH and TX, so it was worth it. To her.

It wasn't that long ago that the left blogopshere seemed to be in general agreement that pretending away Iraq and trying to win entirely on domestic issues was the terminally lame, head in the sand, elitist and corrupt position of the DC consultant class; that it was the epitome of entrenched Democratic cowardice on foreign policy; that it placed the Beltway pro-war consensus over the clear will of the people; that it was the prime example of letting the douchebags define us.

With apologies to Walt Kelly, we have met the douchebags, and they are us.

Ceding foreign policy and the war to McCain isn't simply wrong politically. It isn't simply wrong based on the experience of the last few election cycles. It's simply wrong.

I'd say it's self evident that we should go after both McCain's real weaknesses and his phony "strengths" to paint a complete picture of the man's unfitness for this office at this time in our history. But Jerome isn't making that obvious argument, because Hilary has made her position abundantly clear. Since 2002 she's behaved, voted and spoken in a way that lets Serious People know that she too is Serious about the GWOT. That authorizing the use of force isn't something to apologize for, because presidentin' is hard. That the baseline of international policy is imperialist Republican. That good Dems neutralize foreign policy by more or less going along with orthodoxy, they don't challenge it. And therefore, the permissible ground on which Democrats may compete is rolling up their sleeves and fighting for Joe Lunchbucket. Jerome's seemingly earnest post pondering how best to take on McCain is really yet another pitch for Clinton--because it is rooted in a presumption that the election should be fought, maybe can only be fought on precisely the ground she has so defensively chosen.

An aside:

If Obama goes on to win the primary, I assume that the most strident, Hilary-or-Bust folks around here will go the way of the Ron Paul Army. We'll all wake up one morning to a faint BAMF sound and the stench of brimstone as they vanish, like Nightcrawler of the X-Men.

But what will Jerome do? His arguments against Obama and Obama supporters have been so vitriolic and bitter--he's stuck his neck out so far--it's very hard to imagine him working to get his non-5th choice candidate elected. Have you considered this fall, Jerome? Will you go dark on the national election, focusing all of your efforts on down-ticket races? Alternately, will you look for opportunities to say " I told you so" every time Obama dips a point in the polls? Or as a hardcore Dem, will you put all of this intra-party squabbling aside and concede that your non-preferred Dem candidate, for all of the flaws you perceive in his operation, is still miles and miles ahead of the demented, war-mongering Republican? (I understand that a number of pro-Obama bloggers have similarly gone out on a limb--with Atrios as a notable, and probably very wise exception--but that's not my question here. My question is about the shape and direction of the post-primary myDD.)

I agree with Cole Moore. We have to attack McCain on Iraq. It shows leadership. The country is dying for someone to be straight with them and make smart decisions about the war/terrorism. How you can concede the biggest foreign policy disaster in 100 yrs. to someone who's on the wrong side of the issue is completely bizarre to me. Attack McCain on this and tie it to the economy. The "Iraq recession" should be both HRC and OB's mantra from here on out.