Campaign To Beat McCain

I heard a great idea on one of the blathering pundit shows this weekend, but I must admit I can't remember which one, so I can't credit it properly (apologies to whomever uttered the idea in the first place). In a nutshell: Obama and Clinton should declare a cease-fire between the two camps, and then try to convince the remaining superdelegates (and remaining voters) to vote for them -- based on how effectively they can beat up on John McCain.

That is the "prize" they're both fighting for, remember -- the chance to face off against McCain in the general election. So why not compete with each other on who is the best candidate to do so? And why shouldn't this competition show each candidate's strategy for doing so now, instead of later?

It makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Democrats bemoaning the length of the primary campaign, and those who fear this extended campaign is "harming the party," and even those clamoring for one candidate or another to get out of the race for "the good of the party" -- all should be able to agree that if the campaign went on and on (all the way to August, even), but was completely focused on McCain then it could instead turn out to be good for the party.

Because the two candidates would be trying to outdo each other on attacking John McCain and explaining why a Democrat would be better in the White House. Instead of spending time and money digging up opposition research on each other, they could shift to digging up McCain's flaws. And then loudly proclaiming these flaws to the public.

Hillary Clinton could cut a new 3:00 A.M. ad, comparing her answering the red phone with that crazy old coot, John "Bomb-first-ask-questions-later" McCain. Barack Obama could run an ad with his own youthful face next to McCain's, and ask: "another old, white guy -- or how about a change for the better?" Well, maybe not, but you get the general idea.

This would vet both Democratic candidates' strategies for the general election, and put some negative press attention on McCain as well. If one campaign either went "too far" with an ad, or was being "too soft" on McCain (and Republicans in general), wouldn't it be a great idea to find this out now, rather than after the party has selected a nominee? The two camps would be competing for who can best bruise McCain's image, and in this case such competition would be a good and glorious thing for Democrats everywhere to see. Because if "too harsh" or "too soft" strategies are exposed, then the candidate will sharpen their attack accordingly, because of the competition. This means the anti-McCain strategy -- for either candidate when they win the nomination -- will be honed and ready for action when the general campaign starts.

If this were a boring primary season, remember, we'd already be in the de facto general election at this point. If there was a clear nominee in both parties, then they'd be fundraising and bashing each other instead of obsessively counting delegates. So why not start this now anyway, even with the nomination unclear?

After all, we've got two extremely good candidates who have run half-successful nationwide campaigns so far. The policy differences between the two are not great (they're actually hard to find even if you're looking for them). So instead of dragging voters down into fiercer and fiercer intra-party mudslinging, why not focus all that negativity towards the man Democrats will have to beat this November?

For average voters, it would be interesting to hear the water-cooler talk switch to: "Well, Obama's ad is pretty convincing about how John McCain kicked a puppy once... but Hillary makes a good point that horns, cloven hooves and a tail are visible in photos of McCain... they both make a good case, it's going to be hard to pick one to vote for...."

OK, I'm exaggerating a wee bit. But again, you get the general idea. The candidates would be free to continue campaigning, free to run vicious attack ads (or not), free to vent all kinds of frustration and anger -- and it would all help the party as a whole.

John McCain is not a saint. There is dirt in his background. It's just lying there on the ground, waiting to be picked up and thrown in his face. Just to cite one example, how much of the voting American public remembers that McCain was one of the Keating Five? Yep, there he was in front of a Senate committee getting his hand smacked for bringing shame to the Senate. Video of this must exist. So why hasn't the mainstream media done its job and reminded us all? This is just one glaring example of a McCain weakness, but it certainly isn't the only one. Importantly, though, none of these weaknesses have been shown to the average voter yet in this campaign. This needs to change, and it needs to change as soon as possible.

Both Clinton and Obama would have to agree to it, though. If one candidate started running in this fashion, and the other was still on the attack towards them, then it just wouldn't work. And they'd both have to be able to freely answer any questions in the upcoming debates as well; but out on the campaign stump and (most especially) in the television ad war, both candidates would pledge to keep within the bounds of: "This is why I would make a better president than John McCain."

We've still got three weeks until even Pennsylvania votes. Maybe Obama and Clinton could just try it for a week, to see how it works out? Declare a one-week truce, roll out the best anti-McCain talk they can think up, and compete to see who is better at it. Let the pundits blather about how impressive each would or would not be against McCain in the fall. And get them talking about McCain's weaknesses, to drive his approval numbers down (especially among independents).

If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would both agree to such a strategy, then it really wouldn't matter if the nomination was still open when the party convention happens in late August. Because each would be competing as hard and as viciously as they wanted, but it would all be directed towards the Republican candidate, and not each other. It would also put to rest any calls to end the race early, since it really wouldn't matter how long it went on.

I have no idea what the chances are that this could happen, but I think the concept deserves to be considered. It certainly is better than any other scheme to resolve the contest early that I've heard. Because if I were an undecided superdelegate, I think I would much rather make my mind up watching such a contest, instead of what we've got now.

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Comments

[Michale32086]

This proposal makes sense. It would be a good way to deflate the momentum that McCain is already gaining towards a win.

But the Democrats are too busy tearing each other apart to even PAY ATTENTION to good ideas, much less take time out from their self-immolation to implement good ideas.

I really have to laugh when I read the pundits that parrot the Clinton's claim that "This debate is GOOD for the Party" and "When a candidate is finally chosen, the Democratic Party will come together." That is nothing but a pipe dream put forth by candidate desperate to remain viable.

"The more you tighten your grip, the more systems shall slip thru your fingers"
-Princess Leia, STAR WARS

The more Hillary tightens her shrill grip on the contest, the more superdelegates will slip thru her fingers.

If I hear more pathetic whine about how we must keep the primary vote going until all people have a say, I will bust a vein, I swear!

In 2004, the Dem candidate was decided in Feb.. In 2000, the Goreacle was the chosen candidate by April. So tell me, oh frantic and desperate Hillary supporters. Were the voters in the states that voted AFTER the candidates were chosen disenfranchised in 2000 and 2004? :^/

Hillary is done. The only question remaining is if she is going to drag this out and destroy the Democratic Party or if she is going to do the reasonable thing and step aside.

Michale

[LizM]

Of course, McCain's biggest weakness is that he doesn't understand the first thing about what is going to be required to end the civil war in Iraq. Senators Obama and Clinton should just emphasize that - at every opportunity.

Wait a second...neither Clinton nor Obama understand the first thing about what to do in Iraq, either. Oops.

[noamjunior]

Actually I think both candidates took yhou up on your suggestion - but the media refuses to frame it that way

[nypoet22]

so clearly, someone has to FORCE them to frame it that way. which candidate will be first? let the race begin!

[nazgul]

Excellent idea. They should compete on their ability to increase McCain's negatives and reduce his favorables. None of this traitorous praising of the competition, especially over another Democrat.

[efranklin]

It is a good idea, but I can think of a few reasons this tactic has not yet fully materialized in either campaign:

1) The Clintons have already announced an affinity for John McCain. How hard they would go after him remains to be seen. (Bill has already told us that a duel between Clinton and McCain would be an exceptionally civil one between two patriots.)
2) They might both come across as presumptous, though obviously more so on the Clinton side.
3) Exposure. Clinton vs. Obama just seems to grab more headlines than Someone vs. John McCain.
4) Voters are not choosing between McCain and a Democrat right now. Clinton and Obama have to (somehow) differentiate between themselves. Doing otherwise is a losing strategy. Both want to secure as many votes in the primary as possible so that they'll appear as legit as possible, come convention-time.

[SShaw490]

Sounds good, but for a cease-fire to be effective, both armies have to trust the other to obey their commander's orders. Nobody gives Bill orders, not even Hillary.

Besides that, there's no question how the Obama debate will go. Obama will put an ad together of his speech before the Iraq vote, and then show clips of McCain talking about staying 5 years, 10 years, 100 years...and say, "Which way do you want to go, America? Which one of these candidates was right about the most important foreign policy issue in the last 50 years, America?"

Then picture McCain putting together an ad showing Hillary voting for the war, supporting the war in speech after speech, then talking about how we have to get out, and saying, "The difference between McCain and Clinton is that Clinton was for it before she was against it."

[RadioResearch]

Yes, indeed
If Hill thinks so much of McCain and so little of Obama why doesn't she just offer to run as McCain's vp pick? At least she would be with the candidate she likes best and who shares most of her opinions.
Likewise, if Bill thinks so much of McCain why doesn't he just switch parties? Oops, I forgot he just made up with Mellon Scaife who now supports Hill. Hmm, have they sold themselves out you think? Closet neo-cons, Bill and Hill, just as I suspected alll along.
By the way, has anyone noticed that McCain is violating federal election laws by using the public election financing laws to get himself on the state ballots without the normally required signatures? He used these laws and his public financing application to get on the ballot but now wants to withdraw from public financing to raise more money. Should he not be required to stand by his commintment or should he be disqualified in those primaries where he did not file signatures on his behalf?
And, by the way, why hasn't HuffPo pointed this out somewhere. Maybe we should sue McCain for breach of contract to the public.

[joejones]

Black Americans are an overrated voting demographic becuase they remain a squeeky wheel with access to the media whenever someone half baked comedian at a comedy club makes a scene. . They have shrunk to less than 8% of the population. i am excluding the other 4% who list themselves as black on the census but are immigrants or Latins.

Obama has no chance of winning. He has gone from an uplifting breath of fresh air to perceived as best as a willing puppet of racists and radicals.

Obama and Hillary have managed to frighten the conservatives to work for McCain.
Hillary and Bill will figure out a strategy to win the nomination. She has half a shot.

[gmcc]

you guys should really learn about the keating five scandal before you try to use it against mccain.
ever notice that he was the only republican targeted The other for were dems?
ever notice how the committee refuse to pursue charges because there was absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing (because there was none)? The times tried to bring this up and it got no traction.

The thing about McCain is that he is above this character mud-slinging. All he has to do is highlight the socialist agenda of the Dems and he will get 51% of the vote. Maybe the dems should really change their parties platform, rather that stand on the face of bush and say, "No more Bush, McBush, No 3rd term" and all that crap. McCain is going to distance himself from bush before November and the Dems are going to lose.

[rss]

Only flaw I can think of is that they wouldn't be able to use each other's attacks in the general election without risking being labeled a plagiarist.

[DemandTruth]

Oh, from your mouth to Obama's, Clinton's, and Dean's ears!!!

It would be especially effective, because McCain would have to try to hit back at both of them. This would take energy and money to campaign against a two pronged tag-team attack at once!

Obama could take the kitchen sink, Clinton could get the master bath sink AND the guest bath sink, and they could start hurling them straight at McCain's head. Let's take some of that pent up frustration and rage that we've been directing at eachother, and point it where it really belongs - at the Republicans!

[timm0]

Chris, I almost always agree with your talking points and your posts. But this is the exception. Hillary's credibility is toast. It's eroding rapidly in the Dem world, it's eroding in the Independent bloc, and it's never ever been there in the Repug bloc. Whatever she serves up isn't going to matter to most of the voters across the nation.

But let's say that the ads (to be produced on loan, apparently) hillary cranks out are real home runs in the eyes of Dems, but no one else outside the party cares? Or worse, what if the reaction is, "well, if SHE said it, then I doubt it's true."? She's a lame-duck candidate. Dead woman walking... whatever.

I saw an ad for her yesterday that included her wish to create a tax incentive for companies that stay in the US. That's a good idea. The best she can do right now (since she foolishly refuses to leave the race) is push for common sense policy ideas and stay out of the mudslinging business. She has no right to accuse anyone of any wrong-doing at this point since her accusations thus far have been largely false/misleading, and her ethical conduct has been horrific.

[grendl]

Wait, John McCain and Hillary Clinton share three decades of experience they would each bring to the White House, while Barack Obama has a speech he made seven years ago. Why would she want to join with him?

Oh, because they're in the same party. Someone want to tell her that? Words matter, they can't be unsaid. Her endorsement can be looped over and over again should she win the nomination. She's a liability to the party at this point. That's right dead weight.

Unless she lied, and really was proud to share the same stage as Barack, and really does think the important thing is for a Democrat to win the White House. Its hard to tell from someone who can't tell the difference between sniper fire, and an eight year old girl reading a poem.

Hillary needs to apologize to the party, and Mr. Obama. And James Carville needs to stop dismissing their Rovian tactics as politics as usual. Endorsing the enemy is not politics as usual, the GOP would never do that. Has Anne Coulter made good on that promise to campaign for Hillary yet?

Hell no. They stick together. This party was split by the Hillary campaign.

[boonagain]

At thois point, for Hillary, IMO, it's all about control of the party and its attendant perks, much more than a GE victory.

She's implied many, many times that she thinks McCain is a better candidate than Obama.