It's been a long while since one of the Democratic presidential candidates went after the Republican presidential candidate, so this was a very welcome development.
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday that Sen. John McCain reversed his position on President Bush's deep tax cuts in order to win the Republican presidential nomination, one of his sharpest criticisms yet of the Arizona senator he hopes to face this fall.
Criticizing GOP efforts to extend major tax cuts from Bush's first term and to eliminate the estate tax, Obama said: "These are all steps that John McCain rightly said were irresponsible when they first came up."
"He made a decision to reverse himself on that," Obama told reporters as he flew from Chicago to Washington for a series of Senate votes on budget issues. "That was how, I guess, you got your ticket punched to be the Republican nominee," he said of McCain. "But he was right then, and he's wrong now."
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said in a statement that if Obama is nominated, "the American people will have a clear choice: John McCain will cut taxes while Senator Obama will raise them, hurting our economy and costing jobs for hardworking Americans." Of course that's what McCain's spokesman said. We probably could have written the quote before it was uttered.
The point is, Obama didn't go after Hillary Clinton; in the midst of a heated Democratic primary fight, he went after John McCain.
Can we have more of this please? Say, every day for the foreseeable future?
I'm increasingly of the opinion that this prolonged Democratic primary process is going to seriously undermine the party's chances of winning in November, but I'll concede that there are some clear advantages -- most notably, we can watch two Democratic heavyweights go after the Republican candidate at the same time, while the GOP has two moving targets.
This benefit disappears, of course, when the Dems go after each other, which is all the more reason for them to target McCain. It might even help them make the case to superdelegates: "Look at how effectively I'm going after John McCain now. If you'd like to see more of this in the fall, I'm your candidate."
Frankly, I'm almost indifferent to which issue(s) Dems pick to go after McCain -- I'm more interested that they go after McCain -- but taxes is as good as any. The Arizona senator is clearly vulnerable on the issue -- he's flip-flopped, he's offering tax cuts that his campaign admits he can't pay for, he's embracing the policies of a wildly unpopular president, and he's advocating more irresponsible cuts that most Americans realize won't help them anyway. Indeed, gone are the days that a Republican can just shout "tax and spend!" and hope voters will recoil. Americans have heard all the tax-cut rhetoric from McCain's mentor (George W. Bush), and they realize the policies don't actually help them in any way.
So, Clinton and Obama, by all means, go after McCain on taxes. And Iraq. And health care. And energy, education, poverty, homeland security, and everything else. Just don't destroy each other.
In one of my favorite movies, "Office Space," Bill Lumbergh puts up a soul-crushing banner in the workplace that reads, "Is this good for the company?" and encourages every employee to ponder this question with "every decision you make." I'd like the Clinton and Obama campaigns to consider a similar banner for their headquarters: "Is this going to help Democrats win in 2008?" If you're repeating Republican talking points, you're not helping. If you're praising Republican candidates, you're not helping. If you're intentionally dividing the Democratic electorate with ugly attacks based on race or gender, you're really not helping.
If you're challenging John McCain on an important policy matter, you're helping.
> So, Clinton and Obama, by all means, go after McCain on taxes. And Iraq.
> And health care. And energy, education, poverty, homeland security,
> and everything else.
There's a growing segment of the population that'd prefer if the candidates focus on what they're *for*, rather than purely being *against* someone.
> I'd like the Clinton and Obama campaigns to consider a similar banner
> for their headquarters: "Is this going to help Democrats win in 2008?"
Likewise, more and more of us are weary of people whose fundamental intention is "What's good for the Democrats." It might be effective to think in terms of "What's good for the country" instead.
Stuart's "Random Thoughts" blog
Obama and Clinton, by not coming out for safe, immediate withdrawal of all US troops and contractors, have already lost the battle with McCain over Iraq -- and, probably the election. By refusing to challenge the war itself as not worth the costs regardless of the outcome in that the war's costs are destroying the economy, the Dems have allowed the debate to be one of military tactics. McCain will argue that the Obama/Clinton strategy -- leaving a reduced number of troops in Iraq -- has already been tried and led to 25 dead Americans a week, but that by increasing the number of troops on the ground and keeping them there through the surge, we have reduced US casualties to ten or less dead a week. In other words, by not challenging the war itself and instead buying onto the fairy tale that the region will descend into a calamity of biblical proportions if we leave, Obama and Clinton are putting forward a strategy that McCain will argue increases the likelihood of American casualties. The American people want out of the war and will not buy "cut and run" or "biblical proportions" as a reason to stay, as they understand the cost is not worth whatever outcome occurs. However if their only choice is a costly one that increases US casualties (the Obama/Clinton choice as it will be logically portrayed by McCain), they will support McCain.
The Democrats are collaborators in this war and their refusal to heed the call of the American people to get out will cause them to lose the election, as their counterproposal can easily be portrayed as one that continues incredible costs in lives, limbs and treasure with more casualties than McCain's proposal.
As Jeremy Scahill pointed out recently, whether the US pulls out a year from now, or 10, or 100, there will be a civil war in Iraq. When the US captured Saddam Hussein and disbanded the Iraqi military, all hell broke loose in Iraq, and our presence only fueled the fires.
And we cannot afford the millions of US tax dollars that are being squandered on the Iraqi war "effort." This country's being bled dry; Iraq has already been bled dry. Enough is enough.
McCain poses as a sound commander in chief in a time of war. In fact, McCain is determined to continue and perhaps even to compound the idiotic mistakes made and being made by the Bush administration in the Middle East. MCCain seems unable to grasp the simple fact that al-Qaeda will be in Iraq only as long as the US military offers targets for al-Qaeda to attack. A US withdrawal would lead to the elimination of al-Qaeda. Obama needs to hit hard on this issue.
The spectacle of the Democratic Party's self-evisceration is depressing to anybody hoping to avoid another administration like the present one. When Obama goes after the Republican nominee, he's showing he knows who the real enemy is.
Clinton is willing to win at any cost, and the Democratic Party is going to be collateral damage. She will destroy it if she must. Her attacks on Obama are doing McCain's dirty work for him.
We know McCain didn't die in prison and must have suffered much. Suffering is terrible to witness and we have film.
What i hold against him...? He has NEVER said "Whoops". He has never considered that war was illegal, ill-advised, inhumane and he himself, it could be argued, broke the spirit of Geneva Convention rules because he HAD to know he was bombing women and children. That is what i hold against John McCain. Everyone errs. We are Americans and believe in redemption, but first a sinner has to look his mistake in the face and denounce it. He has made a career of being a victim of the people who spared his life.
Besides, i am afraid McCain will want to march right back into Veit Nam since he has been fighting it ever since against the persons of people he considers "liberals".... who he blames for not letting us "win that war". Over a million civilians dead in Nam were not enough for him.
With any luck, those question might shut them up for five minutes.
With Obama and McCain we'll just get more of the same. With Hillary, we'll get something much worse, if you can imagine.
Hey, everyone voting in the democratic primary right now is against old John. Even republicans know that. Your theory that you can't lose attacking John can backfire like so many of the supposedly well considered moves by the democrats this primary season [the florida primaries come to mind].
And, there is an implicit assumption that John will not be able to make any progress against Barack. Time will tell. The more Barack makes himself a target now against McCain the more he ensures fighting a two front war.
And as a POW he'd learned to take the blows of an inquisition - so today almost any relentless questioning by media types is something he can handle like a walk in the park. A one or two hour press conference is absolutely nothing for him comparied to what he learned to handle as a POW.
As to the coming tough campaign (it's already underway, and pundits and righties are framing the issues as you read this): Anyone in politics is beatable, McCon is no exception. A campaign that leads, moves fast, hits vulnerable targets, reminds the nation of their vision for America and attacks will win. Hesitation, coasting, allowing others to set the agenda, not smacking down hard any swiftie attacks - that will court defeat.
All John McCain has to do is sit back, not say anything too controversial to his fellow Republicans, assure them all that none of this sort of bickering or infighting will be allowed in HIS administration, and he's in. Rove advised party leaders against any racial or gender mudslinging from within the party, at least until after convention, and so far, it has worked. They have been able to rise above the frackus, allowing the Democrats to implode with that battle all on their own. What's worse, even a few weeks ago (feels like years) there appeared to be hope that the Dems could gain additional seats in Congress. Now, the Republicans have been given time to regroup, and rally- their support of party candidates has strenghtened beyond imagination. More contributions are being raised on the Republican Congressional tickets than the Presidential, but it doesn't seem to matter to the Democrats. One thing you got to credit Republicans with, even if they don't particularly like a candidate personally, they are LOYAL to the goals of the PARTY. Something Democrats have never been able to accomplish, even in the best of times. Congratulations all, you may get your CANDIDATE on the ballot, but the in-fighting it took to get there has cost you the ELECTION.
But here's the 411: The readers of this site, of all political websites, are, perhaps, 5% of the electorate. Most of the people voting in the primaries don't know any of this--they have a couple of names, and 15 second sound bites on the network news to go on--& while this abysmal ignorance makes me unhappy, the good side of it is that they are almost completely unaware of the vitriol too.
We are talking about important issues. This mode of conversation will expand. We will have an impact. Right now, we're still a tempest in a teapot.