Hope vs Hack?
Sam Smith's Morning Line captures some of what I've been seeing as I look over Super Tuesday's results.
Here's the piece:
Sam Smith's Morning Line captures some of what I've been seeing as I look over Super Tuesday's results.
Here's the piece:
Add to that -- and while I understand that polls have repeatedly proven to not be enough -- this bit from the Washington Times helps drive home several of the related points.
MORNING LINE : A CHOICE BETWEEN OBAMA AND TROUBLE
SAM SMITH, PROGRESSIVE REVIEW - The most important part of what happened on Super Tuesday is that now the Democrats can't fail to nominate Barack Obama without seriously hurting themselves. The Obama campaign, justified or not, has brought out a stunning number of normally apathetic or discouraged voters. The Clintons are about as exciting as Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz reruns. Those who love them will always love them, but they tend towards the older crowd and no new constituency has been built.
If Obama wins, the Clinton crowd will fall in line, but if Clinton wins an uncertain but impressive number of seldom voters may say to themselves, "I guess it doesn't work," and just stay home. Combine that with Obama's excellent showing in the red states and with white males and the still to be featured seamy past of the Clintons and there doesn't seem to be much choice any more.
Think of it like a hardened pro. Which do you want: Mr Hope, Mr Nice, Mr Clean who is bringing mobs of new voters to the polls or a candidate who had three close business partners go to prison, almost got indicted herself and who said "I don't remember" or something similar 250 times in responding to congressional inquiries about her own behavior?
All ideology and personality aside, the Democrats have really no choice but to go with Obama or expect a downturn of their fortunes as the new constituents Obama brought to the party and out of their living rooms watch their candidate's defeat and decide that maybe this isn't the year for hope after all.
Hillary the lesser threat to McCainGranted, guns will be leveled at whichever Democratic candidate receives the party's nomination -- you can bet that an anointed Obama will have The Most Liberal Senator tag stuck to him again and again. I'd dearly like to see him wear the key issues this evaluation is based on with pride.
By Joseph Curl Joseph Curl
February 6, 2008
Sen. John McCain, who was campaigning yesterday in New York, likely would draw conservatives back to the Republican fold.
Sen. John McCain, who took a major step last night toward locking down the Republican nomination, matches up in a general election far better against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton than Sen. Barack Obama, according to election strategists and pollsters.
"With Hillary Clinton, John McCain would start as a very moderate favorite," pollster Scott Rasmussen said. "McCain would have the edge among independent voters. He is viewed very favorably by independents and Senator Clinton struggles in that area."
Pollster John Zogby agreed, saying, "Obama does better against McCain than Hillary does because she is so polarizing. ... A lot of people will simply be voting against her."
The senator from Arizona beats the senator from New York in 14 of 17 head-to-head polls taken since Dec. 6, but he wins just five of 17 against the senator from Illinois over the same period. Analysts say Mrs. Clinton is so divisive that she would drive moderates and some independents to Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama, conversely, could draw from the pool of supporters who have delivered wins to Mr. McCain in a host of presidential primaries.
"Hillary Clinton will help drive conservatives and independents McCain's way overnight," said Republican strategist Scott Reed. "I believe that would be a more attractive race for Republicans."
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney matches up far worse against the two Democrats. In polls on a head-to-head matchup with Mrs. Clinton stretching back more than a year, Mr. Romney topped the senator just twice in 77 surveys.
In 55 polls against Mr. Obama, he lost in every one. An ABC News/Washington Post poll from Friday put the senator up by 25 points.
Both Democratic candidates can draw sharp distinctions with Mr. McCain on the Iraq war, which he steadfastly supported, even as his presidential campaign imploded over the summer. Mrs. Clinton voted for the war but now opposes it, and Mr. Obama delivered a 2002 speech opposing the invasion of Iraq.
"McCain will have trouble with both Clinton and Obama because they want to get out of Iraq sooner than later and McCain has talked about staying there — perhaps for 100 years," said Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh. "So regardless of the Democratic nominee, when it comes to Iraq, McCain is going to face a real challenge in the general election on a matter that is considered his strong suit yet one the majority of voters now oppose."
Each matchup presents a dramatically different set of parameters. A McCain-Obama battle would highlight age and experience, pitting the 46-year-old freshman senator against the 71-year-old four-term senator, an authority on foreign policy and national security. Mr. McCain likely would use face-to-face debates to highlight his 25-year tenure in government and seek to portray Mr. Obama as a political neophyte not ready for the presidency.
"Every time they have a face-off, it's going to drive some of those independents away from the Democratic Party," Republican strategist Scott Reed said. "There will be a sharp contrast on experience and depth of knowledge when it comes to Obama."
Mr. Obama already has targeted Mr. McCain — and Mrs. Clinton — on the war, an issue many independents oppose. "When I'm the nominee, John McCain will not be able to say, 'Well, you supported the war just like I did,' " Mr. Obama said Monday.
Mr. McCain used the comments to highlight Mr. Obama's short tenure on the national stage. "It's a product of his inexperience," he told reporters. "And we'll be highlighting that."
Mrs. Clinton's campaign suggests she best matches up against Mr. McCain, and touts her experience.
"If John McCain becomes the Republican nominee, Hillary is the Democrat who can beat him because she has the strength and experience a president needs to get America on the right course and to defend it against future threats," Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn said.
Mr. McCain faces additional trouble from within his own party. He has drawn harsh criticism from conservative leaders, from talk-show host Rush Limbaugh to James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. "I am convinced Senator McCain is not a conservative and, in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are," Mr. Dobson said yesterday.
Strategists and pundits predict conservatives will return to the fold if Mr. McCain becomes the nominee. In fact, Mr. McCain could even benefit from his break with hard-core conservatives.
"It's a better trade-off to give up some of the hard-right Republicans to pick up far more moderates and independents, which is precisely what will happen, but he will still finesse the conservatives," Mr. Zogby said. "Do they really want Hillary? No, so they'll all be back."
.png)
Comments
The Surge has had limited short term success. That short term is beginning to end. My prediction is that in the next several months violence increases in Iraq and the Surge is viewed differently.
That is my prediction is that any democrat, Hillary, Obama will easily defeat McCain.
FEAR and HATE are the big Repug motivators. For all sorts of reasons from race to experience these motivators in a general election with the mainstream media aiding McCain will be more useful against Obama.
Obama has an advantage because he did oppose the war resolution which makes credable opposition to the war. With Hillary we will have another case like with Kerry of waffling on the war. But by and large if Hillary is the Dem. Nominee the initial decision will be off the table.
Those are the differences and advantages of the two candidates.
But McCain will lose because the so called "Surge" was merely done for political expediency in America to allow for Bush to sacrifice more blood to avoid admitting the mistake.
That is the worst thing for the Repug party and especially McCain is to get out of Iraq because of what will certainly follow.
Getting out of Iraq would be admitting the mistake of going into Iraq. Admitting that America should never have gone into Iraq will at a minimum make fools out of everyone still supporting Bush, McCain and the Repugs. It will in short destroy what is ever left of any reason for being a Repug.
And that is why McCain is stuck with his policy of staying 100 years. For very political reasons any contrary policy would be far worse for the Repugs in general and McCain in particular. But as the short term success of the Surge gives way to the long term failure of the policy, McCain and the Repugs will be exposed.
And that will make any democratic nominee a winner against McCain.