Clinton's "Big State" Myth: Why Barack Obama Remains the Most Electable Democrat This Fall
The Clinton Campaign's post March 4th message is to forget about the delegate count and nominate Hillary because she can win the big states Democrats need in November. That argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Here's why:
1) Most of the "Big States" she has won are not battleground states in the fall. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California are solid blue states where Obama would do as well or better than Clinton in a general election against McCain.
2) Of the states she's won so far, the big exception to this rule is Ohio. Ohio is in fact a critical battleground state where Hillary has demonstrated that she has a leg up among lower income whites and older voters. But the polling also shows that in a general election, Barack offsets this advantage in Ohio among young voters and college-educated independents. In a McCain-Clinton match up the later group could gravitate heavily to McCain in Ohio.
In an Ohio general election, Obama's ability to attract independents and mobilize young and minority voters will trump Clinton's advantages among non-college whites -- a group that will break heavily for either Barack or Hillary against the "free trade" McCain.
Just remember, in Ohio right now, "national security" is a job. The economy and trade -- not "national security" -- will almost certainly continue to be the overriding issues for non-college whites in Ohio this November.
3) Obama puts in play a panoply of states where Clinton would have a much tougher time. Obama could potentially win Virginia (13 electoral votes), Missouri (11 electoral votes) and even Mississippi (whose population is 40% African American -- 6 electoral votes). He would be considerably more competitive than Clinton in other battleground states like Colorado (9 electoral votes), Iowa (7 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes). The same goes for New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) -- a state where McCain will work hard to woo independents among whom Obama did much better than Clinton in this year's primary.
4) Even in states where Clinton could make a case for some advantages relative to Obama, these "advantages" are far from certain. Take Florida where she might assert an advantage among Latinos. Florida also has up to 500,000 newly enfranchised ex-felons -- many of whom are African American. The problem with these new voters is mobilization, not persuasion. Getting them registered and voting will be hard. Obama would obviously turn out many more African American mobilizable voters than Clinton. And when it comes to Latino voters, Obama's clear record on immigration contrasts well with McCain who has thrown Latino immigration reform aspirations under the bus in order to pander to his party's right wing.
5) Obama has the one quality that allows him to simultaneously motivate mobilizable base voters and appeal to persuadable independents -- the ability to inspire. This quality allows him to broaden the appeal of his candidacy to swing voters. At the same time it allows him to expand the electorate with new young and African American voters who otherwise simply wouldn't vote. Clinton is the anti-inspiration candidate. She will have a much harder time both expanding the electorate and appealing to swing voters. Obama's ability to inspire -- by itself -- makes him a much stronger general election candidate.
6) Finally, let's remember that the base of the Republican Party -- cultural conservatives -- is not so wild about McCain. They are accepting McCain with about as much enthusiasm as children take cough medicine. They know they need him, but they really aren't happy about it. The one thing that could energize the Republican base is their inveterate hatred for Hillary Clinton. Clinton would mobilize right-wing base voters the same way that hatred for Bush motivated Democrats in 2006. Why should we help galvanize the Republican base by nominating Hillary Clinton when we have another great choice?
All of these factors are born out in the consistent survey results that show Obama polls six to ten points better than Clinton against John McCain.
Clinton will have a difficult to impossible time winning the pledged delegate battle. Her only path to the nomination is convincing Super Delegates that she is the most electable. That dog won't hunt.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the new book Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win. The book is available at Amazon.com.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I am an independent voter (thank God!) and I must point out a very important fact that I think many Dems forget. I voted for Obama because he is a uniting force, his past comments about Reagan being a transformational leader are true. Those comments and other very promising insights that he uniquely displays lead me to have unwavering confidence that he can truly do what I know Hillary cannot. And that is UNITE the American people. Hillary began the negative tone of this race from the start, but especially after Obama won in Iowa, she brought out the "But I deserve the nomination" approach and now the kitchen sink smut. The fact that she draws this very strange sympathy vote in some states suggests a very deep problem with ignorance and the media that we face as a nation selecting a leader. Well, I don't have one ounce of sympathy for a wealthy corporate lawyer turned Carpetbagger Senator that uses Arkansas brand race baiting and Little Rock Mafia kneecapping to gain elected office. It is so plain that Obama has authenticity and is a powerful orginal thinker because that is how he runs his campaign. Hillary's wins in ALL the bigger states are truly statiscal dead heats. She has earned no mandate, she is still behind in delegates after "winning" last Tuesday. Understand that this desire to be crowned President is the underlying negative that follows her like a dark shadow. Her history and record are divisive, just do a fact check on her role in the 94 Republican congressional Victory that held dominance for 12 years, Newt had her number, and so will McCain. Obama supporters are not blindly following a man, they are following a vision, and that vision is possible for America, unless the dinosaurs that support the Hillary cult somehow force the Dems to concede to the past.
If that happens... as an independent I will vote for McCain, not because I agree with him in most issues, but because he displays the talent to reach across the aisle, not to the extent that an Obama could, but far surpassing the Clinton model of my way or the highway. George W Bush failed in his Presidency because he could never reach consensus with the American people on any issue, but of course he doesn't care about consensus. Hillary Clinton will never form consensus, her campaign numbers prove that fact! She needs the 50/50 division model to win elections.
What we need in a President is that elusive ability to form consensus and that is what Independent voters will flock to in November.
Thanks for your comment. It is evidence of what I have believed from the beginning of this campaign -- that we have a brief window of opportunity here to create a majority coalition that would permit the next president, with the support of a Congress that is sufficiently reconstituted by the election to provide a working majority, to GOVERN.
Like most Obama supporters, you would vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee. You can blog till the cows come home and never be able to make sense of that position. Maybe that is why so many people think Obama-ites are drinking kool-aid.
how does a uniting force seem to only get half of his party united at this point? By your rational, we should vote for mccain who has already united the ENTIRE other party.
Get your head out of the clouds.
None of Obama's supporters are into detail.
ALL Hillary does in New York is work across the aisle. Obama has co-sponsored one bill that failed.
Start becoming informed people - whatever choice you make - making the decision based on your teen-age crush (or white guilt) is not enough reason to vote for someone
With Obama as the standard bearer, given the disaster of the last seven years and McCain's love fest with Dubya's crew, nearly all states are "in play". The posibility of an LBJ '64 like landslide is not out of the question. There would be little hope of Hillary picking up more than one or two more states than Gore or Kerry.
Hillary has won most of the states that were important to her. She underestimated Obama's appeal. Having said that, I feel she is the more electable candidate. Obama has but one tune and he sings it very beautifully. I feel however, that will become old as people become more familiar with it. Eventually, as is already happening, he will be called on to substantiate his rhetoric with specifics and past experiences both of which are very weak. I feel Obama'ls surge has peaked. My fear was that it would have peaked at the crucial time of the Texas/Ohio votes and we would have chosen at the height of our infatuation. I am very relieved that Hillary has bought time with her equally inspiring halt of Obama's surge. Time is needed to more clearly assess who Obama is and what are his capabilities going forward. My guess is that there is more potential here than actual readiness. I feel that the Republicans would have a fine time getting this point across. Obama's claim on judgment is dubious and again a one song tune. The fact is he hasn't been around enough to have made the tough choices one needs to make. Time and experience DO matter. He needs to be tested by fire not the coddling of the impressionable pundits. If he were to go on to win the nomination, he will be much better for this testing as it is the only testing he has endured so far. In my view it is still not nearly enough to equip him for the position. I think the Republicans will smell blood herel
"Eventually, as is already happening, he will be called on to substantiate his rhetoric with specifics and past experiences both of which are very weak. I feel Obama'ls surge has peaked."
Excuse me, but I'd like to see Hillary "substantiate [her] rhetoric with specifics and past experiences both of which are very weak."
The only thing Hillary has going for her is she has no shame in going negative. Every attack she's made on Obama can be pointed right back at her three times as hard. I will not vote for more Rove tactics.
Isn’t it interesting that there is a myth about Obama’s campaign traveling the “moral high road” when he has been pretty under-handed himself? Remember the universal healthcare mailers in South Carolina? Oh yeah, probably not, because you were busy buying into the “race-card”.
Negative? You’ve got to be kidding me!
1. It turned out that Obama WAS less than truthful (I will refrain from saying “lied”, since I wasn’t there) about the meeting with the Canadians on NAFTA. Pointing to that is considered “negative”???
2. The 3 am call asked questions. Now most OHians and TXans decided, yes the voters decided, that they would rather Hillary answer the call. Deal with it!!!
3. The Rezko thing, I suppose Obamarians will say that the Clinton machine “fixed” the trial to start on the eve of the elections. And let’s face it Obama’s relationship with Rezko is tied to his “community organizing” activities - providing low income housing - so it is relevant, and I, for one, would like more coverage on it.
4. Obama not answering press questions.
So what precisely is Hillary's "experience"? Hosting state dinners as First Lady? Using secrecy, rather than transparency, to ensure the utter failure of her health care plan? Hiding how her husband's wealth ballooned to over $50m per year?
The President needs to be "Educator in Chief." This means explaining *WHY* we should be doing something, rather than just trying to ram it through.
Hillary is too steeped in Jurassic Politics to help America right now.
America needs a uniter and Obama is it....
how does a uniter seem to only get half of his party united at this point? By your rational, we should vote for mccain who has already united the ENTIRE other party.
Get your head out of the clouds.
Robert, that view may be wrong -- consider the following:
Math on the Democratic Side
The arithmetic must include an essential part of the equation:
Neither Obama nor Clinton can secure through the primaries and caucuses the 2,025 delegates necessary to win at the Denver convention without the votes of the superdelegates.
Add up all the states he has won in his drive to become the nominee, including all of those small and
deeply "red" Republican states and --
so far Obama has won in places representing 193 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
so far Clinton's has won in places representing 263 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
So how have the candidates fared in states that are crucial building blocks of a Democratic general election strategy?
Obama = 51 electoral votes:
from his home state of Illinois, plus Wisconsin, Washington and Minnesota.
Clinton = 118 electoral votes:
from her home state of New York, as well as California, New Jersey and Michigan.
The problem Obama faced in Ohio was --
Obama won only five of the state's 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign.
Clinton won among Catholic voters, 63 percent-36 percent, according to exit polls. And Clinton beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually.
Obama, the leading candidate, still hasn't shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back is up against the wall.
[source of information - article by Marie Cocco] goto--->
Your analysis has failed to take into consideration the electoral votes of the states that are most certainly going to go blue regardless of which candidate in the nominee, of the significant support Obama got even in the states in which he did not win the primary, his demonstrably greater attraction of independents and Republicans than Clinton, and his significantly higher polling in a hypothetical match-up with McCain than Clinton. Clinton's candidacy is in trouble at least in part because she ignored and denigrated the importance of "the little states." In reality, the likelihood of an electoral LANDSLIDE in November with Obama as the candidate is far greater than the likelihood that Clinton can win by a few electoral votes. Your analysis, like the Clinton strategy, ignores the very real possibility that we are about to see a remaking of the political map in which what used to be blue coasts and all red in between becomes a sea of blue.
"the very real possibility that we are about to see a remaking of the political map in which what used to be blue coasts and all red in between becomes a sea of blue."
HOW? what does Obama offer the whole country? I caucused for Hillary Clinton in Colorado - Boulder - the whitest town I've ever lived in. Obamania reigned - in a town where people obviously don't know any blacks (there were 2000 people there - and 1 black man) and clearly don't want to live in the same town with them!
Obama is known as the 'bargainer' - like Oprah, and Cosby, he makes us feel we're not racist... And THEN came Texas and Ohio - the reality check.
California, New York, and New Jersey are safe Democratic states. Either wins those. Same with Illinois. She didn't WIN Michigan, she picked it up by default, which is why it isn't counted by the Democratic Party right now.
So looking at those facts, your (Marie's) analysis dissolves to:
Barack=Wisconsin, Washington, Minnesota
Hillary = nothing.
Something is greater than nothing. Obama certainly has the electoral advantage.
Now, if you really really want Hillary to win, feel free to just say so. But creating imaginative but wrong arguments doesn't really convince anyone who is actually thinking about the situation. It does show either a desperation or lack of honesty which should be taken into account.
Contention about the ex-felons should not have appeared in your argument. If a felon serves more than 1-year in prison, I believe, that he/she has lost the right to vote. Second, I don't want a bunch of thugs selecting the next President.
I am an Obama supporter, but your message is the kind of thing that makes me consider to back-off. Like that stoopid, "Vote or die" campaign in Ohio last year.
Just cool it.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of all the dirty tricks in politics by the Clintons. Can we, as the greatest Nation in the world really stand for another 8 years of the Hill/Bill dynasty? I think not.
They have lied :
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
They have stolen:
They were forced to return antiques, furniture and other priceless items back to the white house
when they left office.
They decieve:
Hillary said she would turn over her income tax records by March 4, 2008- as far as i know that
has not happened. They have some 20,000 pages (in Bills control) that pertain to Hillary when
she was first lady and they haven't turned them over yet.
All of this and more makes me wonder if her and Bill can really be trusted again. I think not.
Hillary rolled into the primary process by campaigning on one thing: name recognition. Early on, the contest was HRC vs. a bunch of people you don't know. Those who also had name recognition didn't have it on the same level as Hillary. But now things have changed. Everyone has been introduced to Barack Obama and a lot of people like his message. Hillary can't skate by on name recognition anymore, and her campaign has failed to find a message. They cobbled together a platform of experience, which is great except the most experienced person in the race is McCain. Driving voters to the most experienced candidate is foolish when you aren't the most experienced candidate. If she loses, she has only herself and her campaign to blame.
Obama won 5 counties and lost 88 in Ohio, Missouri is similar. If he cannot win among Democrats in so many counties he has no chance against a Republican. BTW, the crossover vote, i.e., Republicans voting for Obama in the primary in Ohio, went for Obama. So if you are thinking republicans somehow voted for Hillary to scramble things up in Ohio, you are wrong.
As for converting red states - what are you smokin? It comes down to the battleground states and maybe Nevada and Colorado. Hillary has a much better chance because of her ability to carry the latino vote. A Obamanut posted a comment here saying Obama may win Georgia. A college student I hope who has no clue about real poilitics.
It doesn't matter how many counties you win, it matters what the population is of the counties you win. If Obama wins Chicago, he wins Illinois, even though Cook County is only one county. There happen to be about 6 million people there, however.
As for the red state question, I don't think you understand how large the African American population is in many so-called red states, especially in the South. My parents live in Georgia, and I can tell you that it's not just "Obamanuts" who think he can carry Georgia.
I'm tired of all the derogatory nicknames for Obama used by snarky posters. I have one name for them...idi
I live in Georgia too!! So I am not relying on second hand information and wishful thinking like you are. And that is why you are called Obamanut. Obama will not win Georgia no matter how hopeful you are, period. And he will not win Mississipi or Tennessee!
Not every state's population is so skewed in a big city like Illinois!! That is why Obama lost Ohio even though he won the most populous 5 counties! Obama will win the Blue states like California, New York, Mass etc because of similar population concentration in giant cities. But he will lose the battleground states where the cities are not that huge compared to the rest of the state.
how does not winning a Democratic primary against another Democrat translate into the ability to beat a Republican in a general election?
You're equating two completely different things. There is no relationship between the two unless Hillary's supporters hold the cult of her personality in higher regard than they do well-being of our nation.
It is mathmatically impossible for her to end up with more pledged delegates at the convention unless she wins every remaining contest by 15-20 points. That is simply not going to happen, so what's the point of her campaign? If she gets the nomination by trick, artifice or non-democratic superdelegates votes, the democratic wing of the Democratic party will walk away in disgust, ensuring McCain's victory. The longer she continues her scorched earth campaign tactics, the more it helps McCain. I'm beginning to wonder if she doesn't actually support McCain, even if it is only on a sub-concious level. She did in fact support Lieberman and only tepidly supported Lamont after she was pressured into promising to support the winner of the Democratic primary.
Her party loyalty is clearly subject to question.
It is mathematically impossible for Obama (or Hillary) to win 50% of the delegates under any scenario. The nominating rule is you have to win 50%. Obama knew it and Hillary knew it. There is no medal for winning the most. Looks like you want to change the rules in the middle of the game.
As for Obama's pledged delegates, many were won in caucusus. The Texas caucus proves that caucuses not necessarily reflect the will of the people. It has been the tactics of the Obama campaign to find weaknesses in the nominating process and to trick the system by better organizing caucuses represented by a tiny minority of the eligible voters. 1 out of 23 primary voters showed up in Texas and it has been even more dismal in other caucuses. Moreover, the caucus system is not free and fair election - it does not have secret ballots which is a fundamental principle of democratic elections.
So all of you stop shouting that superdelegates should not break the will of the people. This is not an election but a nomination - look up the difference between the two words in your college library. Because of the caucus system, it is not possible to know the exact will of the people when the numbers are so close. So the party (superdelegates) must chose and "nominate" not "elect" the candidate who they think has a better chance in the general election. If they think, it is Obama, so be it but the party has to make the decision. And Hillary has every right to get nominated at this point as well after Ohio and Texas.
Thank you. Your analysis is correct because it avoids the logical fallacy identified in you first question.
You miss the point of primaries. Primaries are about winning DELEGATES, not the popular vote. If the Democratic Party wants it to be about winning the popular vote, then we should have a "winner take all" system like the Republicans.
We don't. (Grumbling about Gore's "win" in the General?)
You *CANNOT* and *SHOULD NOT* interpret the popular vote. If the way to win delegates were based on "winner take all" system, then the way that Obama would have executed his strategy would have been different.
It's only natural that Obama would spend his money in areas that will lead to the biggest bang.
That's called smart campaigning.
Hillary's team was caught way off balance when it was revealed that Obama was targeting unbalanced delegate precincts (i.e., those with odd numbers of delegates). Obama amassed a huge lead in the delegate search by being a masterful tactician.
His campaign alone should tell you that he will be brilliant as Commander in Chief, much better than "Bring 'em on Bush" or "A Thousand Years of McCain."
Convince me - without childish insults to Clinton - why I should vote for Barack - I have not heard one substantive reason to do so.
Obama beats McCain by 12 points in the general:
http://www
I am amazed at how much the governor of Florida is so "concerned" about the Democrat's voting rights. Mr. Cramer is right; Republicans are pushing hard for Mrs. Clinton.
I don't care what her supporters say, she has high negatives, and the unwavering hatred of the right. I used to defend her when talking to Republican co-workers. I even wrote to MSNBC when I thought she was unfairly treated. I did all this while supporting Obama. After the last week, I feel like a fool for defending her. She proved with her dirty campaign tactics, she deserves everything that is dished out to her. I will never vote for her. If she manages to win with her tactics, I'll take a second look at Nader.
I agree with the fact that the "big states" that Clinton has won will go democratic no matter who the candidate is. Karl Rove produced 2 maps Tuesday night on Fox that showed a race between Mccain and Clinton (McCain wins) and McCain and Obama (It's not certain because of the purple states Obama won. In other words, There are definite red states and definite blue states, but there are more toss ups if Obama goes up against McCain.
We as supporters need to find a way to remind voters that even if the Clinton years are thought of as economically good, there was also so much negative that took place during those years. Scandals, hearings, travelgate, and Bill's personal life, etc... were not helpful in advancing a positive image of the U.S. in the rest of the world and cost us money to deal with. These were also was a distraction and we have serious issues to that we need to deal with, we don't need 4-8 years of all the ethical and legal issues that seem to come with the Clintons.
I'd really like to see Obama keep his word about not being a part of the politics of the past, but if others outside the campaign can't figure out a way to remind voters of what a Clinton White House will be like and all the negatives of Hillary Clinton, then I say try to keep it issue related and as civil as possible and win the nomination. Does anyone have any idea how to let voters let the DNC know how it feels about Michigan and Florida and the Superdelegates? I'm from Michigan and didn't vote because I believed it didn't count (I'm sure some Floridians didn't vote either for this reason) and I also got several robocalls stating that the democrats weren't having a primary so many voters are voting in the republican primary. Redo's in both states seem fair. If no new primary/caucuses aren't held then they shouldn't count. Obama has to win because the alternatives are scary.
Oh, do we think Rove wants to "help" us choose the next best nominee against his party? My, how awfully helpful that would be. His suggestion that Obama may be more electable should raise a huge red flag.
Hillary's influence in big political machines is evident and exactly what Obama has been positioning as the problem with our current system. If Obama wins it is because he as electrified an electorate who is tired of the status quo. This appeal lies on both sides of the aisle and has the greatest attracion among Independents. The hardcore party voters are not to be swayed so easily, but the disenfranchised majority are more likely to be lead with a new vision for change, rather than parsing the details of party politics. McCain clearly owned this "maverick for change" ideal in 2000, but has sold out on his positions to placate the irrational far right agenda. He will lose this ground to Obama in the current election and his edge will disappear unless the extremely high negatives of the Clintons are brought to bear. Then we will see McCain walk away with this election as only the hardcore Clintonistas remain faithful. Policy differences are few between the three, but ability to unite or divide the nation clearly is favoring Obama and McCain. Arguing experience goes to McCain but arguing change goes to Obama. Clinton will be perceived as an extension of the dynasty politics that Lil' George will be a hard negative to overcome. Obama hasn't rlled out Bill's negatives because he has to play nice, but believe me the Repugs will not hesitate to pick up on Whitewater, Lewinsky lies, Rich friend pardons, Hillary's position as a woman in power who enables or ignores abuse of women by Bill just to get more power. This is like a bad dream and McCain will be the answer on both sides of the aisle. He is more of a liberal than Hillary and less likely to be corrupted by power and create real change in ethics, which is Obama's strength.
Most of the states Clinton has won are blue states-- states the dems should be able to count on. The red states that Obama has won Most likely will go to McCain anyways. & the reliance upon caucuses with the Obama camp. There is something quite questionable about using caucuses as a real barometer of how things will shake down on the actual election.
Actually your comments about caucuses isn't that accurate. Everyone needs to remember that the BEST place to judge how well Obama will do among white average middle class Americans was in Iowa where all candidates had to spend considerable time meeting voters in all kinds of settings and places and in homes all over the state and couldn't primarily rely on a few big fundraisers or just expensive TV ads like was the case in CA and most other Super Tuesday states. If Obama could win in Iowa he can win everywhere except in the South and a few Red states like Idaho and UT, etc where racism and the GOP stranglehold would prevent any Dem from winning in these states. So I would claim the absolute best barometer of how well the caucuses can pick the right nominee was in Iowa, where you didn't have a lot of ethnic minorities affecting the outcome nor a great deal of economic distress. If Obama can win in a state with about a 90+ white population he can win anywhere Hillary can and places she can't.
RJ Crane, topplebush
Obama can win in the south -- he will have many new voters coming to the polls in November, some who have never bothered to vote before this election! It's been happening all over the country and it will continue if he is the Dem nominee!
It’s upsetting to keep hearing people express that “Latinos are for Hillary”. Give me a BREAK.
I’m from the Potomac area, where Obama smashed Hillary with our – Latino – Vote. Stop generalizing that the Clintons – a family that does not understand the Latino issue – has the entire Latino vote in the U.S. Unfortunately, I’m sure that if Florida gets to vote once again, Hillary will win Florida, but that’s ONLY because FL is packed with right-win Cubans who either vote Republican or Conservative Democrat and who control U.S. foreign relations towards Latin America. It’s disgusting the amount of power Cuban-Americans have.
That’s of course Hillary’s based, a woman that you just two days ago congratulated the Colombian Government of Alvaro Uribe, just as Bush did. Shame of her. The ENTIRE Latin American region is opposing Uribe’s terrorist tactics – and she dares to say that she supports Uribe.
It makes me laugh that she talks about Foreign Relations experience when her husband, Bill Clinton, created Plan Colombia. A plan that gives funds to give military equipment, among other things, to Colombia with the excuse of eradicating drugs, when in reality Plan Colombia is displacing poor Afro–Colombians and killing millions of union leaders.
I am a Latina homeowner woman and I am NOT for Hillary Clinton –
Excellent post. Hillary has gotten away with her experience claims so long that even the s-called pundits have bought into it. First lady experience does not cut it. Does anyone propose that Laura Bush is qualified to be President based on her 16 years as a Texas and US First Lady?
Also, Obama should play up the comparison to Lincoln, who had less experience than Obama but who was one of our greatest Presidents. Also, see this week's Time magazine article on the value of experience: it is helpful, but not determinative of excellent performance.
Lastly, Obama needs to hit Hillary hard and long over the tax disclosure issue. Why should she be allowed to wait until she is nominated before she discloses her returns? The press should be made to push for this info also.
Please, Sen. Obama - hit back hard!
New Jersey
3/2/08 Rasmussen
McCain: 45
Obama: 43
Clinton: 50
McCain: 39
http://www
3/6/08 ABC/Wash Post
General Election:
McCain vs. Clinton
McCain 47, Clinton 50, Und 1
Clinton +3
General Election:
McCain vs. Obama
McCain 42, Obama 53, Und 3
Obama +11
http://www
Assuming she genuinely believes what she's saying, HRC's specious logic on the whole Obama "can't win big states" or "hasn't had success in the states that Democrats have to win" argument smacks of a kind of Dubya-think that makes me shudder. Does Senator Clinton actually believe that her supporters won't line up behind the party's nominee come November? Are "blue collar" Dems and Hispanic Americans really going to vote McCain or stay home rather than get behind a Democratic candidate that lines up with Clinton on 99% of the issues? Obama didn't lose Ohio (or any other state) to McCain, after all.
While I'm griping, when is someone going to call Senator Clinton on her whole "more experience" line? She has served in the Senate, what, four years longer than Senator Obama? Being physically present in the White House for eight years doesn't qualify her to be the Commander-in-Chief on Day One any more than it does George Stephanopoulos. If anything, the fact that she single-handedly blew the country's golden moment to enact meaningful health care reform in 1993-94 -- the one project she touched -- would seem to cut the other way.
And to think, this is coming from someone who back in 2006 was rooting for HRC to get in the race!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
