« Hillary can give more pain to Barack
Oklahoma State Rep. Goes On Anti-Gay Tirade »



On the State of Things

March 9th, 2008
By JEREMY DIBBELL

Print Print

Well, the campaign continues. Back in January, I never would have thought that the Obama-Clinton race would have gone on this long. Iowa was a mere eight weeks ago, and there are now about six and a half weeks left before the next big contest in Pennsylvania on 22 April. Seems unbelievable when it’s put like that, doesn’t it?

My discomfort with the Clinton campaign continues to grow more intense. Their “kitchen sink” strategy against Senator Obama is disheartening, and their particularly devious new tactics (floating the “dream ticket” idea and denigrating Obama’s qualifications in very offensive ways) are extremely troubling.

This week Hillary Clinton began using a very dangerous line: “Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Senator Obama has one speech in 2002″ and various derivations of the same. Video here. She continued: “I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.”

To completely dismiss Senator Obama’s entire career in that way is, frankly, beneath even the dignity of a Clinton.

Somehow Hillary Clinton gets away with claiming “35 years of experience” (that’s everything since she was 25 years old) when in reality she has been in the Senate since 2001 and before that spent eight years as First Lady (where her one attempt at policy-making failed in legendarily spectacular fashion). Given the choice, I would much rather have someone with Obama’s life experiences and track record in the White House.

This line of attack is not only dishonest and unfair, it also doesn’t jive with the “dream ticket” theory Bill and Hillary Clinton have been pushing hard in Mississippi - if they don’t believe Senator Obama is qualified to be president, they certainly wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) want him on the ticket as vice president. And by all traditional calculations it makes no sense to put Clinton and Obama together anyway (two liberal senators, both non-white-males, both from safe Democratic states … it’s a recipe for disaster). The Clintons know this - the line is just a tactic to try and winnow off potential Obama supporters, and I hope the voters in Mississippi and other states will see right through it and vote to put Obama at the top of the ticket.

The other totally specious argument being made by the Clinton campaign and its surrogates is the “big state” line. Yes, Senator Clinton won the primaries in California, Ohio, New York (her current home state), Florida (where they didn’t campaign), Michigan (where Obama’s name wasn’t on the ballot) and is currently ahead in Pennsylvania. But obviously Obama would be just as competitive in those states in November, and probably more so through his demonstrated ability to draw Republicans (like me) and independents who might be (also like me) disinclined to support Clinton under any circumstances.

We’ve got a long way to go, and there’s much campaigning left to endure. But I say to all voters in states where contests have yet to be held (and, I guess, all super-delegates too), think about what you’re doing. Think seriously about these questions: Which candidate will be able to bring the country together instead of ripping it apart? Who will be most able to run a respectable, honest and uplifting campaign against Senator McCain? Who will be able to make the most states competitive in the fall? Who will be able to inspire a new generation of voters and get them to the polls? Who will be able to offer a new way forward instead of the same old song?



This entry was posted on Sunday, March 9th, 2008 at 10:36 am and is filed under John McCain, Democratic Party, Newsweek Blogitics, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 Elections, Centrists, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 20 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Relax:

    1) O has a delegate lead
    2) O has about a 6-700k popular vote lead
    3) there is no way Hillary will be able to make either deficit up
    4) she will end up, at best, down 120 or so delegates, and down 500k+ votes
    5) that's at best
    6) the Dems will not commit hari-kiri by pulling a Bush 2000 and selecting Hillary
    7 because the Obamaheads wd walk, and Big Mac would kill Hill the Chill
    8) because O will not take a VP slot when he shd be the #1 guy
    9) black people would pull a Rodney King if the first black Prez candidate w a real shot at winning is screwed
    10) Obama is more electable because he can win in states Hillary cannot
    11) because Hillary is eking out wins in the traditional Dem strongholds
    12) but O is blowing her out in Red states
    13) therefore, Hill's campaign against Mac wd be a defensive one cuz no red state will go blue for her
    14) because she has no appeal to Indies
    15) while O does appeal to Indies more than Mac
    16) and O draws Rep voters, while Hill does not
    17) therefore a Mac-O matchup would put Mac on the defensive and O on the offensive
    18) because O can win Red states
    19) and he's done this all by actually living up to his promise not to fight dirty
    20) where Hill only has dirt left and will lose fairly.
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks, Jeremy- great post.

    Cosmo- thanks, too! But I'm not too sure about your #17 (O is on the offensive and Mac is on the defensive). I think M has shown his willingness to be offensive (pun intended) and will be even more on the offensive to lure moderates away from O in the red states. Besides, a huge part of O's support is his ability to appeal to Dems, Repubs and independents. I think if O were going on the offensive in a O-M race, O would lose some of that support. But then again, maybe my idea of being on the offensive in countering one's opponents is different than what you mean.

    Anyway I couldn't agree with you more on the other points and I like the way you laid them out, too.
    • ^
    • v
    Stockboy: I meant Offense and defense not in specific charges but in having to defend states. O can eat into Mac's strobghold but there are few blue states that will go for him, esp. we his pro-war stance. A Hill-Mac match is a stalemate with the 2 battling over 5 or 6 states to decide it. Indies give Mac an edge and means Hillw d have to campaign more in blue states.

    O, however, would have the Indy cushion, and could campaign in Red states that Mac would gave to defend, because he won't eat into the blue base if O is the guy.
    • ^
    • v
    Cosmo- thanks for the clarification. I'm dense today. Yes, I agree- in an O-M race, M will have to fight for territory that would usually be safely in his corner.

    I think in a H-M match that M would prevail. In a H-M match-up, M enters with the best of both worlds. M has much of the appeal of O (both O and M appeal to moderates whereas too many people find Hillary divisive) and M has waaay more experience than H. In order for H to win against M, she really has to go negative and push M's buttons. Let's face it, M is not very pretty when he has his buttons pushed.... Which attacks would also make Hillary look like the divisive person she is, which would turn a lot of former O supporters off from voting at all. (O, on the other hand seemed to shed H's attacks like water- at least in the OH debate.)

    Also you mentioned that in a H-M race, H would have to campaign more in blue states. I totally agree. And it's another reason she would lose the general election- H will need the support of some red states to win the presidency. She won't win that support if she's busy defending her "home" turf. Those 5-6 states that you mention would more than likely go to M (assuming M can come across as reasonable and not let H's attacks get under his skin).
    • ^
    • v
    DQ - we've received complaints about your last comment and it will be deleted.
    • ^
    • v
    DQ - we've received complaints about your last comment and it will be deleted.

    Truly unfortunate, but does not invalidate my point.

    Once the White Working Class realizes that their choice is between a Republican and an African-American, they will vote for the Republican.
    • ^
    • v
    Wow, Don Q went more negative than Holly? That's an accomplishment!
    • ^
    • v
    Jeremy, great to see you! I still check out Charging RINO and I am really glad to see you doing some posts. I am also glad to see your posts that are giving Obama a fair hearing. Have you checked out the Republicans for Obama site?

    Regards,
    Kathryn
    DQ-yes some white working class will not vote for Obama, but a lot do and will, if we let the basest (lowest) define us we are doomed to 50 more years of Bush/Clinton
    • ^
    • v
    Holly is right about what will happen to the Dems if Obama wins. DQ, however, is right about how voters really think. Obama has no executive experience, either way. He is not ready to run a country. Good luck with that Obama "change" and "hope" thing, because I know it's all about the catch phrase.
    • ^
    • v