Very interesting point made today in a USA Today article today. Senator Clinton's 3 AM phone call ad is credited with playing a large role in her recent victories in TX and OH, but in a national level campaign McCain may end up being the one voter's would most prefer to have answer that fateful early morning call...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-03-07-raasch-column_N.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
McCain’s purported “strength” is foreign policy. That said, at least for now, the Iraq war doesn’t have the saliency it had earlier in the campaign season. The economy (including healthcare, rising unemployment, mounting mortgage foreclosures, the meltdown of the financial sector, etc.) is the issue uppermost in people’s concern at present. And on this issue McCain is at a distinct disadvantage, as are the Republicans. In fact, I believe McCain has even admitted that knowledge of economics is not his forte.
So I think his alleged “foreign policy advantage” is neutralized by his weakness on the economy and domestic affairs. Besides, his vulnerability among so-called evangelical Republicans (they are likely to stay home, given their dislike of McCain and disdain for Democrats) he is predicted to have trouble with independents as well. Check out this transcript from the recent Bill Moyers Journal: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03072008/transcript2.html which casts light on his standing among traditional conservatives. Bill Moyers’ guests are the Republican Mickey Edwards and libertarian Matt Welch. If you get a chance, watch the Journal on PBS if you are able to see a repeat. This is insightful and informed discussion you’re unlikely to get from the usual suspects (i.e., popular media).
The conversation continues!!!
Unfortunately, Mr. Raasch's opinion piece is probably right, not just because of the 3 AM phone call ad, but because Senator Clinton took it further by going out of her way to compliment McCain by saying he met the "commander-in-chief" threshold.
The Clinton campaign then proceeded to outfox themselves by floating the idea of Clinton-Obama ticket, blowing holes in the argument they just made about Obama not being ready to be president.
It is very disappointing to see how short-sighted the Clinton campaign is. In an election where none of the candidates have executive experience, they should have had enough clue to understand that the "experience" argument works against them with McCain as the Republican nominee. In their zeal to destroy Obama as a rival, the Clinton campaign will only succeed in dividing the Democratic party and keeping the White House and the judiciary in Republican hands, and our armed forces in Iraq indefinitely.
To Dad's point about evangelicals staying home, I don't think it's possible to overestimate the level of hatred and distrust that many conservatives have for both Clintons. When Hillary is the Democratic nominee, they will ignore the inane bleating of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc and line up around the block to vote against her.
If Hillary Clinton is willing to compliment a rival from the opposing party to get ahead of a rival in her own party, I have serious doubts that I'll be able to pull the lever for her in the general election. As a senator, she's already sided with Republicans on bad Iraq policy enough that I'm beginning to doubt much would change on that front even if she did win the White House.
As a follow up to this thread, again, I was intrigued by the comments made in another USA Today article published a few weeks ago. The point is made that the real crises that often define a presidency or the impact a president has on his/her country are (a) unexpected and (b) come at you really fast, so there is a real question of whether anyone is ever really prepared. Obvious recent examples are (1) Bush senior being forced to change his stance on taxes so quickly after Iraq War I, (2) Bush II having to respond to the Sept 11 attacks. It suggests perhaps that we should place less weight on obvious measures such as time in office and more on less tangible measures such as your basic sense or gut instinct, hopefully substantiated by concrete examples (but not necessarily many), of whether that person is likely to exercise balanced, intelligent, thoughtful judgment in an *unforeseen* crisis. To me, much like the "Democrats might not want this question answered" article, that tends to turn the current thinking somewhat on its head, wouldn't you say?
The link to that USA Today article was http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-24-Ready_N.htm?POE=click-refer
Here's that link again..
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-24-Ready_N.htm?POE=click-refer
Post a Comment