Monday, April 21, 2008

UPDATED APRIL: DESPITE THE RECENT HYPE, SEN OBAMA MAY ACTUALLY BE LESS ELECTABLE THAN SEN. CLINTON

By Staff Writer
April 30, 2008
OPINION

As Sen. Obama has risen in the polls of late to become the Democratic front-runner, the biggest factor seems to be the increasing Democratic voter perception that Sen. Obama is somehow more electable than Sen. Clinton against John McCain. The idea (promoted willfully by many in the media) is that Sen. Obama is young, charismatic with less baggage than Sen. Clinton and that he will be able to bring the country together to beat Sen. McCain. Now certainly this could happen, but I would like to argue that despite what you hear in the mainstream media, if Sen. Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, he could in fact be less electable than Sen. Clinton for the following reasons:

THE MEDIA HAS BEEN SURPRISINGLY EASY ON SEN. OBAMA, WHICH HAS ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED HIS POLL NUMBERS

For months, Sen. Obama has received unbelievably positive coverage by the mainstream media (“MSM”). Anyone who watches cable news or reads national newspapers/magazines knows that many in the press seem to have abandoned their supposed objectivity and are virtually cheerleading for him, while Sen. Clinton has received excessive negative criticism (see CNN Segment on Pro-Obama Coverage, "Media Expert Decries Campaign Coverage," Associated Press, SNL Debate Parody 1 and SNL Debate Parody 2). In addition to his MSM promotion, Sen. Obama seems to have received the backing and/or valuable resources of much of the left-wing infrastructure in this country. But, Democrats should remember that the very media that is hyping Sen. Obama is the same media that attacked Al Gore and John Kerry while promoting George W. Bush; the same media that promoted the Iraq War; and the same media that guaranteed Sen. Clinton would lose NH. To put it bluntly, the MSM is often wrong and seldom has Democrats best interests at heart. Additionally, the right wing media has also been laying off Sen. Obama (until very recently) because they likely see him as the weaker candidate against Sen. McCain (for reasons to be discussed below).

Media calls for her to get out prematurely:

"Let Obama-Clinton contest play itself out," Gene Lyons, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 4/9/08
"Obama's Secret Weapon--The Media," John Harris and Jim Vandehei, Politico.com, 4/18/08

"Don't Stop Campaigning," Editorial, Washingtonpost.com, 3/30/08

SEN. OBAMA’S RECENT CAUCUS AND PRIMARY VICTORIES MAY HAVE OVERSTATED HIS ELECTABILITY

Many of Sen. Obama’s victories have come in undemocratic caucuses in Republican states (which Democrats aren’t likely to win in the general election), states with heavy African-American voting populations or states where non-Democrats are voting (who will likely vote for Sen. McCain once Sen. Obama is fully vetted by the media). Many Republicans/Independents who are voting for Sen. Obama may not even be true supporters, but could be attempting to manipulate the Democratic primary results. Sen. Clinton has done much better than Sen. Obama in most of the big states that Democrats must win in a general election (e.g., CA, NY, NJ, MA, FL, MI, OH) and has generally done well among core Democratic constituencies, including working class voters, Hispanics, women, older voters, Asians and others. Remember, that if the Democratic Party had counted FL and MI delegates (like the Republicans did) and if the Democrats had mostly utilized a winner-take-all primary system (used in the general election and in the Republican primary), Sen. Clinton would likely have been the overwhelming favorite after Super Tuesday. Despite Sen. Obama’s over-promotion by the press and the other problems already mentioned, the delegate count is still extremely close and either candidate can win the nomination (see more on Sen. Obama’s electability in Washington Post and Real Clear Politics).

Electoral Arguments /she's more electable

"Clawing for edge, Democrats fight over defining 'winner'", Patrick Healey, International Herald Tribune, 3/12/08

"Why Hillary Clinton Should Be Winning," Sean Wilenz, Salon.com, 4/7/08


"What Clinton Wishes She Could Say," John Harris and Jim Vandehei, Politico.com, 4/13/08

“AP Poll: Clinton leads McCain by 9 points”, Liz Sidoti, Yahoo.com, 4/28/08

Media Myths:

"Three Myths About The Democratic Race," Peter Daou, HillaryClinton.com, 3/24/08



UNLIKE SEN. CLINTON, SEN. OBAMA HAS NOT YET BEEN FULLY VETTED AND HE MAY WITHER UNDER RIGHT WING/MEDIA ATTACKS


As previously noted, the MSM and right wing media has been relatively soft on Sen. Obama. But this will likely change if he is the Democratic nominee as the Republican attack machine and/or the rest of the media will try to tear Sen. Obama apart, as they’ve done with every other Democratic presidential candidate in the last three decades. Only Bill and Hillary Clinton have been able to withstand the onslaught. The Republican attack machine made Vice President Gore, who was intelligent, experienced and won the popular vote, look like a loser. They made Sen. Kerry, a war hero, seem like a coward. They are masters at demonizing Democrats. Carter, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore and Kerry all failed against them. Many of these Democratic nominees also had big leads over Republicans in polls until the MSM and Republican attack machine got through with them. And most of these were experienced, seasoned politicians. Sen. Obama has never run nationally against a tough Republican opponent. He’s never faced the Republican attack machine. He hasn’t been fully vetted by the media, which makes him an extremely risky choice as a nominee. Picking an unvetted new, fresh face, with a limited track record has not been a successful strategy for Democrats in the past. Democrats have run newer national candidates before who led in the polls for awhile, only to see their campaigns implode once exposed to the right wing attack machine and/or increased media scrutiny. Remember Howard Dean, Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis? Unfortunately, history shows that new, untested, and unvetted candidates often wither under such heavy Republican and media scrutiny. This election is much too important for Democrats to take such a risk (see also Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s article “Battle Tested” for further discussion of some of these points).

SEN. OBAMA HAS SEVERAL WEAKNESSES WHICH MAY BE EXPLOITED BY REPUBLICANS AND/OR THE MEDIA

I generally like Sen. Obama and acknowledge that he and Sen. Clinton share many of the same Democratic positions on many key issues, but any rational analysis of his candidacy would suggest that he has several potential weaknesses which the Republicans and/or the media will likely pounce on. Let me list a few that have already come up during the campaign:

1) Sen. Obama is relatively inexperienced in foreign and domestic policy, especially compared to Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain – Sen. Clinton has substantially more foreign and domestic policy experience than Sen. Obama. After graduating from Yale Law School, she worked as an attorney in the Watergate proceedings, she later served on the Board of the Children’s Defense Fund and the Legal Services Corporation, and she was one of the nation’s top attorneys (see also Sen. Clinton’s Early Record). Most importantly, Sen. Clinton has served as perhaps the most influential advisor and strategist to a successful Governor and President--Bill Clinton. As First Lady (of Arkansas and the United States) she worked on many crucial public policy issues, such as education, foster care, health care, women’s rights, and represented our nation to various foreign leaders in numerous countries. She has had eight years of meaningful on-the-job training of being President. Neither Sen. McCain nor Sen. Obama has this experience. She also is a successful two term Senator including serving on the influential Armed Services Committee. In contrast, Sen. Obama has only been in the Senate for three years, which includes substantial time running for President and/or writing and promoting his book. Before that he was a part-time state senator and attorney/law professor. Let me put it bluntly, the Democrats have seldom run a candidate with so little national and/or executive branch governmental experience and therefore it is a real risk for Democrats to choose Sen. Obama as their nominee. The ultra-experienced McCain will likely try to exploit this weakness in Sen. Obama’s background. Sen. Clinton would match up better against Sen. McCain in terms of experience (see "Public Divided on Whether Obama Has Necessary Experience," Gallup.com).

2) Additionally, Sen. Obama’s fellow Democratic rivals, the press and the right wing media have already identified several other potential weaknesses which will likely be exploited by the Republicans in a general election including:

The Republicans won’t be afraid to exploit these weaknesses and many others that haven’t been found yet against Sen. Obama, so Democratic voters should consider these issues now, before it’s too late.

DEMOCRATS ARE MORE LIKELY TO WIN WITH A PROVEN FIGHTER LIKE SEN. CLINTON WHO HAS DEMONSTRATED THE ABILITY TO PREVAIL OVER THE REPUBLICAN MACHINE/MEDIA SCRUTINY

As the past three decades have shown, the most important asset a Democratic nominee can have is the ability to take a hit and fight back successfully against Republicans. Sen. Clinton has faced the Republican smear machine with President Clinton, in many gubernatorial elections, two presidential elections and two Senate elections, and has won, again and again. Sen. Clinton has repeatedly demonstrated that she is an amazing fighter who has stood up for Democratic causes over the years, in the face of the most vicious attacks (e.g. she was called a murderer, the Devil, corrupt, etc.) and she has survived and flourished. Sen. Obama has not yet demonstrated this capability. As Ambassador Joseph Wilson (himself a victim of the right wing smear machine) wrote recently:

Theodore Roosevelt once commented, "It is not the critic whocounts: not the man
who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doerof deeds could have
done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actuallyin the arena, whose
face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strivesvaliantly, who errs and
comes up short again and again, who, at the best, knows,in the end, the triumph
of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails,at least he fails while
daring greatly." If he were around today, TR might bespeaking of the woman in
the arena. Hillary Clinton has been in that arena for ageneration. She is one of
the few to have defeated the attack machine that istoday's Republican Party and
to have emerged stronger. She is deeplyknowledgeable about governing; she made
herself into a power in the Senate; sheis respected by our military; and she
never flinches. She has never beenintimidated, not by any Republican -- not even
John McCain.

GENERAL ELECTION POLLING DATA IS FAIRLY MEANINGLESS AT THIS STAGE

Supporters of Sen. Obama, cite recent polls showing him slightly ahead of Sen. Clinton in hypothetical match-ups against McCain as evidence that he is more electable. For example, a recent LA Times poll found McCain leading Sen. Obama nationally 44% to 42% while McCain leads Sen. Clinton 46% to 40%. However, general election polls at this stage are usually inaccurate. The current polls have been changing by the week and are very fluid. For example, in the wake of Sen. Clinton's March 4th victories in TX, RI and OH, she has already regained her leadership position over Obama in several national polls (Gallup 3/6/08 and Rasmussen, 3/6/08). Additionally, in past elections, early polling has proved very inaccurate. For example, President Clinton was trailing George Bush (I) and Perot at one point and he eventually won. Gov. Dukakis was way ahead of George Bush (I) in the polls and he ended up losing badly in the general election. As Mark Penn points out, Senator Clinton’s support will likely rise in the polls in the general election (since she’s already been through the right wing smear machine). People will see that she is reasonable, experienced, and not the polarizing figure they’ve been told she was (as they did in her NY Senate races), whereas the largely unknown Sen. Obama’s negatives will likely rise and his poll numbers will likely fall under the scrutiny of the media and the Republican attack machine.

SEN. OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE PLAN (WHICH FAILS TO COVER ALL AMERICANS) IS LESS ATTRACTIVE THAN SEN. CLINTON’S HEALTH CARE PLAN

Senator Clinton, like Sen. Edwards, offers a superior health care plan that covers everyone and provides universal coverage, just like Medicare and Social Security. Sen. Obama’s plan does not. It is voluntary and leaves roughly 15 million people out. Sen. Clinton understands, unlike Sen. Obama, how difficult getting health care passed will be, and she has the advantage of having learned from her past experience what works and what doesn’t work. She will not have to learn on the job and make rookie mistakes. Although she is still idealistic, like Sen. Obama, through her experience she has become more pragmatic which has helped her craft a better, more workable health care plan with a greater chance of success. The main reason universal health care reform failed in the 1990’s was not due to Democrats, as Sen. Obama implies, but because of the insurance industry and Republican organized opposition which reportedly spent hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat it. Thus, Sen. Obama is wrong to blame Democrats for the failure of health care. Also, it was the Democrats, including Sen. Clinton, who helped to get the Children’s Health Insurance Program passed in the 1990’s. Sen. Clinton is a visionary leader on health care like Al Gore is on global warming. Sen. Gore fought to do something about global warming for several decades and hardly anyone listened, but finally his message is sinking in and changes are being made. Sen. Clinton has continually fought for universal coverage for years, including when it was unpopular, and she is still fighting for it now, when it is finally within our reach. She deserves Democrats’ praise, not Sen. Obama’s attacks, for her efforts.

SEN OBAMA AND SEN. CLINTON HAVE SIMILAR RECORDS ON IRAQ DESPITE SEN. OBAMA’S RHETORIC

Despite Sen. Obama’s rhetoric, his record on Iraq, once in the Senate, is nearly identical to Sen. Clinton’s and they are both in favor of bringing the troops home as soon as possible. Sen. Obama seems to be arguing that he should be President because he gave one anti-war speech as a virtually unknown state senator. As Ambassador Joseph Wilson has pointed out, Sen. Obama has falsely tried to paint Senator Clinton as pro-war because she voted for the resolution authorizing war. But, many Democrats voted for the resolution to give time for the inspectors to do their work—a reasonable position given the intelligence Senators were getting at the time. They were not voting for a pre-emptive war and said so at the time. As Bill Clinton, Joseph Wilson and others have pointed out, Sen. Obama admitted in 2004 that he didn’t know how he would have voted on the resolution if he were in the Senate and he stated that there wasn’t much difference between his position and George Bush’s position at that point. Sen. Obama never seriously attacked Sen. Kerry, Sen. Edwards or the other Democrats on this issue, only Sen. Clinton when it was politically advantageous for him. The Democrats can only win in November by rightly blaming Bush/Cheney and the Republicans for the Iraq war, not each other. As Joseph Wilson so aptly writes in “Battle Tested,” “Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats” (see also "Obama’s Hollow ‘Judgment’ and Empty Record,” Joseph Wilson).

SEN. CLINTON IS BETTER POSITIONED TO RUN ON THE SUCCESSFUL DEMOCRATIC/CLINTON RECORD THAN SEN. OBAMA

Sen. Obama has shown a strange propensity during this campaign to attack Democrats and the Clintons for many of the country’s problems. He blames Democrats for the failure to get health care passed; he blames Democrats for Iraq; he blames Democrats for failing to help the poor; he blames Democrats for partisan bickering. But most Democrats know that the main obstacle to real change in this country in the past three decades has been the Republicans, not the Democrats. If our nominee can’t convincingly make this point to the country, we won’t win. Blaming Democrats for the country’s problems, rather than Republicans is a bad general election strategy. The best way for Democrats to win in the fall is to attack Republicans and Bush/Cheney for their dismal performance over the past seven years and to run on the successes of the Clinton Presidency—the only successful Democratic Presidency of the last 30 years. Sen. Clinton was an integral part of the Clinton administration (e.g., First Lady, key advisor, campaign strategist, etc.). Sen. Clinton can best lay claim to the Clinton record of foreign policy and economic success (e.g., record budget surpluses and unprecedented job growth) and overall competence in running the government (e.g., good emergency operations, etc.). To win, Democrats must make the case that they are better at running the government than Republicans. The best way to do this is to run on the Democratic/Clinton record (not belittle it) and show how it was superior to the Bush/Cheney record. If Democrats don’t run on Bill Clinton’s policy record, they will make the same mistake Gore did in 2000 and have a very difficult time winning.

SEN. OBAMA HAS ARGUED HE HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF BRINGING DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS TOGETHER NATIONALLY, BUT THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE OF THIS FROM HIS NATIONAL RECORD

Sen. Obama’s record on the national scene is not very long, as noted above, and thus there is no significant record of his ability to bring Democrats and Republicans together at the national level. Sen. Clinton has a much longer track record of working with the opposition in the Senate—including with people who tried to impeach President Clinton. In the three years Sen. Obama has been in the Senate, Sen. Clinton has sponsored more bills (53) that have attracted Republican co-sponsors than Sen. Obama has (24 bills) over the same period. (See Fact Hub). Additionally, Sen. Clinton has a surprisingly strong record of attracting independents and Republicans in both of her NY Senate elections. One could argue that Sen. Clinton’s record (as opposed to rhetoric) is as good if not better than Sen. Obama’s in terms of bringing together Democrats and Republicans.

SEN. OBAMA OFFERS INSPIRING WORDS ABOUT CHANGE, SEN. CLINTON OFFERS A LONG TRACK RECORD OF MAKING CHANGE

Sen. Obama seems to argue that inspirational words are the only important ingredient to winning elections and making change. Words are very important (and Sen. Clinton has demonstrated in debate after debate that she is very good with words), but actions and accomplishments are even more important. Democrats will do better selecting a candidate that has a long and impressive track record of accomplishments in public life, rather than a relative newcomer to the scene. As described above, Sen. Clinton has a long record of public service including experience in the White House and Senate. She offers more than just rhetoric about change, for the past two decades, Sen. Clinton along with President Clinton have been leading the fight nationally (often in the face of vicious opposition) to change the Republican direction of this country. They led the fight to stop Republicans from cutting the social safety net, privatizing Social Security, gutting the environment, weakening civil rights’ laws, cutting taxes on the wealthy at the expense of the poor/middle class, dismantling public education, blocking increases in the minimum wage/earned income tax-credit, cutting services to the poor/homeless, and on and on. Sen. Clinton (and her husband) have led the fight over the years for Democratic causes (e.g., improving and expanding health care, increasing the social safety net, protecting Social Security, improving the environment/stopping global warming, improving tax fairness for the poor and middle class, raising the minimum wage and earned income tax credit, improving education, enhancing women’s and civil rights, rebuilding the economy and helping the poor and middle class). Fundamental change (e.g., civil rights, global warming recognition, the end of apartheid, the right to vote for women) takes significant time and effort by experienced and visionary leaders. Now that the country has seen the disastrous results of Republican rule with Bush/Cheney, it will be easier to get the change we need. Sen. Clinton has worked for most of her adult life as a national leader to change this country away from Republicanism towards Democratic ideals. She is the person to continue to lead that change, not someone who has for the most part been a bystander in the important Democratic fights of our times.

CLOSING

Despite all the media hype and meaningless polls, Sen. Clinton is likely to be more electable in a general election than Sen. Obama for all of the reasons outlined above. Voters must ask themselves, without all the media hype, who do they really think is most qualified, given their past experience, to be President right now? I believe, most Democrats, if they are honest, think it is Sen. Clinton. This begs the question. If a voter really thinks Sen. Clinton is more qualified to be President, why are they letting the media decide how they should vote? Maybe it’s time for voters to start thinking for themselves.

Recommended Articles to Read for Undecided Voters:

"Battle-Tested," Joseph Wilson, Huffington Post, 2/13/08

"Kennedy's For Clinton," Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and Kerry Kennedy, Los Angeles Times, 1/29/08

"Women Are Never Front-Runners," Gloria Steinem, The New York Times, 1/8/08

"Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton," Editorial, The New York Times, 1/25/08

"Drift away from Clinton frustrates many women," Robin Abcarian, Los Angeles Times, 3/2/08

"Democratic nominee: Clinton is better prepared," Editorial, The Denver Post, 2/1/08

"Clinton, Obama, Insurance," Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 2/4/08

"Obama's Hollow 'Judgment' and Empty Record,” Joseph Wilson, Huffington Post, 3/2/08

"Clinton vs. Obama on Electability," Chris Cillizza, Washingtonpost.com, 2/11/08

"Why Hillary, Not Obama Is The Democrat To Beat McCain," Mark Penn, Real Clear Politics, 2/11/08"

"The Obama Mystery," David Igatius, The Washington Post, 2/17/08

"Hillary's Edge," Gail Collins, The New York Times, 3/6/08

And if you want a good laugh---see the new Jack Nicholson ad for Hillary Clinton at Huffington Post

Additional Selected Articles (Many Utilized in Article):

"The press will torment Obama, too," Eric Boehlter, Media Matters, 2/28/08

"Hate Springs Eternal," Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 2/11/08

"Media Expert Decries Campaign Coverage," Beth, Fouhy, Associated Press, 3/2/08

2/23/08 SNL parody of Debates and SNL Tina Fey Commentary on Sen. Clinton

3/1/08 SNL Debate Parody and Sen. Clinton Response

CNN Clip on Pro Obama Press Coverage

“Obama's European Problem,” Joe Conason, Salon.com, 12/29/07

"For Obama, A Taste Of What A Long Battle Would Hold," Adam Nagourney, The New York Times, 2/29/08

"Effect of Sen. Obama's Candor Yet To Be Seen--Senator Admitted Trying Cocaine In a Memoir Published 11 Years Ago,” Lois Roman, Washingtonpost.com, 1/3/07

"Obama Walks A Difficult Path As He Courts Jewish Voters," Neelah Banerjee, International Herald Tribune, 3/1/08

“Did Obama Take Too Much Credit,” Lynn Sweet, SunTimes.com, 2/2/07

"Obama Echoes Deval Patrick...Again," Jake Tapper, ABCnews.com, 2/17/08

"Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake," Dave McKinney and Chris Fusco, Chicago Sun Times, 11/5/06

"An Obama Patron and Friend Until Indictment," Christopher Drew and Mike McIntire, The New York Times, 6/14/07

"FACT CHECK: Obama, His Contributor Rezko, the Slum Landlord Business," No Quarter, 1/25/08

"Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties To Fuel Rumors About Him," Washingtonpost.com, 11/29/07

"Was Barack Obama A Muslim?" Daniel Pipes, FrontpageMagazine.com, 12/24/08

"Obama's Spiritual Mentor--Powerhouse Chicago Preacher Draws Attention and Plenty of Controversy," Michael Hill, BaltimoreSun.com, 1/16/08

"Did Michelle Obama take a swipe at Clinton?" Alexander Mooney and Martina Stewart, CNN.com, 8/31/07

“Michelle Obama Remark Stirs Controversy,” Huffington Post, 2/19/08

”Obama speaks with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski” MSNBC, 11/13/07

"Obama may face grilling on patriotism--No flag pin, no hand over his heart: Is he exposed?" MSNBC.com, 2/24/08

"McCain Presses Obama on Pledge About Public Funds," Glenn Kessler and Jonathan Weisman, Washingtonpost.com, 2/21/08

"The Ever -'Present' Obama," Nathan Bonzales, Real Clear Politics, 2/13/07

"Obama's Complex History With Lobbyists," Christopher Wills, Washingtonpost.com, 12/2/07

“Hillary Clinton Works With Republicans More Frequently Than Sen. Obama,” The Fact Hub--Hillary Clinton website, 2/29/08

"Obama's Ties to Left Come Under Scrutiny," Russell, Berman, NYSun.com, 3/6/08

"Obama once visited 60's radicals," Ben Smith, Politico.com, 2/22/08

"Public Divided on Whether Obama Has Necessary Experience," Jeffrey Jones, Gallup.com, 3/4/08.


Copyright 2008

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, March 3, 2008

Despite The Recent Hype, Sen. Obama May Actually Be Less Electable Than Sen. Clinton

By Staff Writer
March 2, 2008 (with additional updates on March 6, 2008)
OPINION

As Sen. Obama has risen in the polls of late to become the Democratic front-runner, the biggest factor seems to be the increasing Democratic voter perception that Sen. Obama is somehow more electable than Sen. Clinton against John McCain. The idea (promoted willfully by many in the media) is that Sen. Obama is young, charismatic with less baggage than Sen. Clinton and that he will be able to bring the country together to beat Sen. McCain. Now certainly this could happen, but I would like to argue that despite what you hear in the mainstream media, if Sen. Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, he could in fact be less electable than Sen. Clinton for the following reasons:

THE MEDIA HAS BEEN SURPRISINGLY EASY ON SEN. OBAMA, WHICH HAS ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED HIS POLL NUMBERS

For months, Sen. Obama has received unbelievably positive coverage by the mainstream media (“MSM”). Anyone who watches cable news or reads national newspapers/magazines knows that many in the press seem to have abandoned their supposed objectivity and are virtually cheerleading for him, while Sen. Clinton has received excessive negative criticism (see CNN Segment on Pro-Obama Coverage, "Media Expert Decries Campaign Coverage," Associated Press, SNL Debate Parody 1 and SNL Debate Parody 2). In addition to his MSM promotion, Sen. Obama seems to have received the backing and/or valuable resources of much of the left-wing infrastructure in this country. But, Democrats should remember that the very media that is hyping Sen. Obama is the same media that attacked Al Gore and John Kerry while promoting George W. Bush; the same media that promoted the Iraq War; and the same media that guaranteed Sen. Clinton would lose NH. To put it bluntly, the MSM is often wrong and seldom has Democrats best interests at heart. Additionally, the right wing media has also been laying off Sen. Obama (until very recently) because they likely see him as the weaker candidate against Sen. McCain (for reasons to be discussed below).

SEN. OBAMA’S RECENT CAUCUS AND PRIMARY VICTORIES MAY HAVE OVERSTATED HIS ELECTABILITY

Many of Sen. Obama’s victories have come in undemocratic caucuses in Republican states (which Democrats aren’t likely to win in the general election), states with heavy African-American voting populations or states where non-Democrats are voting (who will likely vote for Sen. McCain once Sen. Obama is fully vetted by the media). Many Republicans/Independents who are voting for Sen. Obama may not even be true supporters, but could be attempting to manipulate the Democratic primary results. Sen. Clinton has done much better than Sen. Obama in most of the big states that Democrats must win in a general election (e.g., CA, NY, NJ, MA, FL, MI, OH) and has generally done well among core Democratic constituencies, including working class voters, Hispanics, women, older voters, Asians and others. Remember, that if the Democratic Party had counted FL and MI delegates (like the Republicans did) and if the Democrats had mostly utilized a winner-take-all primary system (used in the general election and in the Republican primary), Sen. Clinton would likely have been the overwhelming favorite after Super Tuesday. Despite Sen. Obama’s over-promotion by the press and the other problems already mentioned, the delegate count is still extremely close and either candidate can win the nomination (see more on Sen. Obama’s electability in Washingtonpost.com and Real Clear Politics).

UNLIKE SEN. CLINTON, SEN. OBAMA HAS NOT YET BEEN FULLY VETTED AND HE MAY WITHER UNDER RIGHT WING/MEDIA ATTACKS

As previously noted, the MSM and right wing media has been relatively soft on Sen. Obama. But this will likely change if he is the Democratic nominee as the Republican attack machine and/or the rest of the media will try to tear Sen. Obama apart, as they’ve done with every other Democratic presidential candidate in the last three decades. Only Bill and Hillary Clinton have been able to withstand the onslaught. The Republican attack machine made Vice President Gore, who was intelligent, experienced and won the popular vote, look like a loser. They made Sen. Kerry, a war hero, seem like a coward. They are masters at demonizing Democrats. Carter, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore and Kerry all failed against them. Many of these Democratic nominees also had big leads over Republicans in polls until the MSM and Republican attack machine got through with them. And most of these were experienced, seasoned politicians. Sen. Obama has never run nationally against a tough Republican opponent. He’s never faced the Republican attack machine. He hasn’t been fully vetted by the media, which makes him an extremely risky choice as a nominee. Picking an unvetted new, fresh face, with a limited track record has not been a successful strategy for Democrats in the past. Democrats have run newer national candidates before who led in the polls for awhile, only to see their campaigns implode once exposed to the right wing attack machine and/or increased media scrutiny. Remember Howard Dean, Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis? Unfortunately, history shows that new, untested, and unvetted candidates often wither under such heavy Republican and media scrutiny. This election is much too important for Democrats to take such a risk (see also Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s article “Battle Tested” for further discussion of some of these points).

SEN. OBAMA HAS SEVERAL WEAKNESSES WHICH MAY BE EXPLOITED BY REPUBLICANS AND/OR THE MEDIA

I generally like Sen. Obama and acknowledge that he and Sen. Clinton share many of the same Democratic positions on many key issues, but any rational analysis of his candidacy would suggest that he has several potential weaknesses which the Republicans and/or the media will likely pounce on. Let me list a few that have already come up during the campaign:

1) Sen. Obama is relatively inexperienced in foreign and domestic policy, especially compared to Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain – Sen. Clinton has substantially more foreign and domestic policy experience than Sen. Obama. After graduating from Yale Law School, she worked as an attorney in the Watergate proceedings, she later served on the Board of the Children’s Defense Fund and the Legal Services Corporation, and she was one of the nation’s top attorneys (see also Sen. Clinton’s Early Record). Most importantly, Sen. Clinton has served as perhaps the most influential advisor and strategist to a successful Governor and President--Bill Clinton. As First Lady (of Arkansas and the United States) she worked on many crucial public policy issues, such as education, foster care, health care, women’s rights, and represented our nation to various foreign leaders in numerous countries. She has had eight years of meaningful on-the-job training of being President. Neither Sen. McCain nor Sen. Obama has this experience. She also is a successful two term Senator including serving on the influential Armed Services Committee. In contrast, Sen. Obama has only been in the Senate for three years, which includes substantial time running for President and/or writing and promoting his book. Before that he was a part-time state senator and attorney/law professor. Let me put it bluntly, the Democrats have seldom run a candidate with so little national and/or executive branch governmental experience and therefore it is a real risk for Democrats to choose Sen. Obama as their nominee. The ultra-experienced McCain will likely try to exploit this weakness in Sen. Obama’s background. Sen. Clinton would match up better against Sen. McCain in terms of experience (see "Public Divided on Whether Obama Has Necessary Experience," Gallup.com).

2) Additionally, Sen. Obama’s fellow Democratic rivals, the press and the right wing media have already identified several other potential weaknesses which will likely be exploited by the Republicans in a general election including:

The Republicans won’t be afraid to exploit these weaknesses and many others that haven’t been found yet against Sen. Obama, so Democratic voters should consider these issues now, before it’s too late.

DEMOCRATS ARE MORE LIKELY TO WIN WITH A PROVEN FIGHTER LIKE SEN. CLINTON WHO HAS DEMONSTRATED THE ABILITY TO PREVAIL OVER THE REPUBLICAN MACHINE/MEDIA SCRUTINY

As the past three decades have shown, the most important asset a Democratic nominee can have is the ability to take a hit and fight back successfully against Republicans. Sen. Clinton has faced the Republican smear machine with President Clinton, in many gubernatorial elections, two presidential elections and two Senate elections, and has won, again and again. Sen. Clinton has repeatedly demonstrated that she is an amazing fighter who has stood up for Democratic causes over the years, in the face of the most vicious attacks (e.g. she was called a murderer, the Devil, corrupt, etc.) and she has survived and flourished. Sen. Obama has not yet demonstrated this capability. As Ambassador Joseph Wilson (himself a victim of the right wing smear machine) wrote recently:

Theodore Roosevelt once commented, "It is not the critic who
counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer
of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually
in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives
valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who, at the best, knows,
in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails,
at least he fails while daring greatly." If he were around today, TR might be
speaking of the woman in the arena. Hillary Clinton has been in that arena for a
generation. She is one of the few to have defeated the attack machine that is
today's Republican Party and to have emerged stronger. She is deeply
knowledgeable about governing; she made herself into a power in the Senate; she
is respected by our military; and she never flinches. She has never been
intimidated, not by any Republican -- not even John McCain.

GENERAL ELECTION POLLING DATA IS FAIRLY MEANINGLESS AT THIS STAGE

Supporters of Sen. Obama, cite recent polls showing him slightly ahead of Sen. Clinton in hypothetical match-ups against McCain as evidence that he is more electable. For example, a recent LA Times poll found McCain leading Sen. Obama nationally 44% to 42% while McCain leads Sen. Clinton 46% to 40%. However, general election polls at this stage are usually inaccurate. The current polls have been changing by the week and are very fluid. For example, in the wake of Sen. Clinton's March 4th victories in TX, RI and OH, she has already regained her leadership position over Obama in several national polls (Gallup 3/6/08 and Rasmussen, 3/6/08). Additionally, in past elections, early polling has proved very inaccurate. For example, President Clinton was trailing George Bush (I) and Perot at one point and he eventually won. Gov. Dukakis was way ahead of George Bush (I) in the polls and he ended up losing badly in the general election. As Mark Penn points out, Senator Clinton’s support will likely rise in the polls in the general election (since she’s already been through the right wing smear machine). People will see that she is reasonable, experienced, and not the polarizing figure they’ve been told she was (as they did in her NY Senate races), whereas the largely unknown Sen. Obama’s negatives will likely rise and his poll numbers will likely fall under the scrutiny of the media and the Republican attack machine.

SEN. OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE PLAN (WHICH FAILS TO COVER ALL AMERICANS) IS LESS ATTRACTIVE THAN SEN. CLINTON’S HEALTH CARE PLAN

Senator Clinton, like Sen. Edwards, offers a superior health care plan that covers everyone and provides universal coverage, just like Medicare and Social Security. Sen. Obama’s plan does not. It is voluntary and leaves roughly 15 million people out. Sen. Clinton understands, unlike Sen. Obama, how difficult getting health care passed will be, and she has the advantage of having learned from her past experience what works and what doesn’t work. She will not have to learn on the job and make rookie mistakes. Although she is still idealistic, like Sen. Obama, through her experience she has become more pragmatic which has helped her craft a better, more workable health care plan with a greater chance of success. The main reason universal health care reform failed in the 1990’s was not due to Democrats, as Sen. Obama implies, but because of the insurance industry and Republican organized opposition which reportedly spent hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat it. Thus, Sen. Obama is wrong to blame Democrats for the failure of health care. Also, it was the Democrats, including Sen. Clinton, who helped to get the Children’s Health Insurance Program passed in the 1990’s. Sen. Clinton is a visionary leader on health care like Al Gore is on global warming. Sen. Gore fought to do something about global warming for several decades and hardly anyone listened, but finally his message is sinking in and changes are being made. Sen. Clinton has continually fought for universal coverage for years, including when it was unpopular, and she is still fighting for it now, when it is finally within our reach. She deserves Democrats’ praise, not Sen. Obama’s attacks, for her efforts.

SEN OBAMA AND SEN. CLINTON HAVE SIMILAR RECORDS ON IRAQ DESPITE SEN. OBAMA’S RHETORIC

Despite Sen. Obama’s rhetoric, his record on Iraq, once in the Senate, is nearly identical to Sen. Clinton’s and they are both in favor of bringing the troops home as soon as possible. Sen. Obama seems to be arguing that he should be President because he gave one anti-war speech as a virtually unknown state senator. As Ambassador Joseph Wilson has pointed out, Sen. Obama has falsely tried to paint Senator Clinton as pro-war because she voted for the resolution authorizing war. But, many Democrats voted for the resolution to give time for the inspectors to do their work—a reasonable position given the intelligence Senators were getting at the time. They were not voting for a pre-emptive war and said so at the time. As Bill Clinton, Joseph Wilson and others have pointed out, Sen. Obama admitted in 2004 that he didn’t know how he would have voted on the resolution if he were in the Senate and he stated that there wasn’t much difference between his position and George Bush’s position at that point. Sen. Obama never seriously attacked Sen. Kerry, Sen. Edwards or the other Democrats on this issue, only Sen. Clinton when it was politically advantageous for him. The Democrats can only win in November by rightly blaming Bush/Cheney and the Republicans for the Iraq war, not each other. As Joseph Wilson so aptly writes in “Battle Tested,” “Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats” (see also "Obama’s Hollow ‘Judgment’ and Empty Record,” Joseph Wilson).

SEN. CLINTON IS BETTER POSITIONED TO RUN ON THE SUCCESSFUL DEMOCRATIC/CLINTON RECORD THAN SEN. OBAMA

Sen. Obama has shown a strange propensity during this campaign to attack Democrats and the Clintons for many of the country’s problems. He blames Democrats for the failure to get health care passed; he blames Democrats for Iraq; he blames Democrats for failing to help the poor; he blames Democrats for partisan bickering. But most Democrats know that the main obstacle to real change in this country in the past three decades has been the Republicans, not the Democrats. If our nominee can’t convincingly make this point to the country, we won’t win. Blaming Democrats for the country’s problems, rather than Republicans is a bad general election strategy. The best way for Democrats to win in the fall is to attack Republicans and Bush/Cheney for their dismal performance over the past seven years and to run on the successes of the Clinton Presidency—the only successful Democratic Presidency of the last 30 years. Sen. Clinton was an integral part of the Clinton administration (e.g., First Lady, key advisor, campaign strategist, etc.). Sen. Clinton can best lay claim to the Clinton record of foreign policy and economic success (e.g., record budget surpluses and unprecedented job growth) and overall competence in running the government (e.g., good emergency operations, etc.). To win, Democrats must make the case that they are better at running the government than Republicans. The best way to do this is to run on the Democratic/Clinton record (not belittle it) and show how it was superior to the Bush/Cheney record. If Democrats don’t run on Bill Clinton’s policy record, they will make the same mistake Gore did in 2000 and have a very difficult time winning.

SEN. OBAMA HAS ARGUED HE HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF BRINGING DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS TOGETHER NATIONALLY, BUT THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE OF THIS FROM HIS NATIONAL RECORD

Sen. Obama’s record on the national scene is not very long, as noted above, and thus there is no significant record of his ability to bring Democrats and Republicans together at the national level. Sen. Clinton has a much longer track record of working with the opposition in the Senate—including with people who tried to impeach President Clinton. In the three years Sen. Obama has been in the Senate, Sen. Clinton has sponsored more bills (53) that have attracted Republican co-sponsors than Sen. Obama has (24 bills) over the same period. (See Fact Hub). Additionally, Sen. Clinton has a surprisingly strong record of attracting independents and Republicans in both of her NY Senate elections. One could argue that Sen. Clinton’s record (as opposed to rhetoric) is as good if not better than Sen. Obama’s in terms of bringing together Democrats and Republicans.

SEN. OBAMA OFFERS INSPIRING WORDS ABOUT CHANGE, SEN. CLINTON OFFERS A LONG TRACK RECORD OF MAKING CHANGE

Sen. Obama seems to argue that inspirational words are the only important ingredient to winning elections and making change. Words are very important (and Sen. Clinton has demonstrated in debate after debate that she is very good with words), but actions and accomplishments are even more important. Democrats will do better selecting a candidate that has a long and impressive track record of accomplishments in public life, rather than a relative newcomer to the scene. As described above, Sen. Clinton has a long record of public service including experience in the White House and Senate. She offers more than just rhetoric about change, for the past two decades, Sen. Clinton along with President Clinton have been leading the fight nationally (often in the face of vicious opposition) to change the Republican direction of this country. They led the fight to stop Republicans from cutting the social safety net, privatizing Social Security, gutting the environment, weakening civil rights’ laws, cutting taxes on the wealthy at the expense of the poor/middle class, dismantling public education, blocking increases in the minimum wage/earned income tax-credit, cutting services to the poor/homeless, and on and on. Sen. Clinton (and her husband) have led the fight over the years for Democratic causes (e.g., improving and expanding health care, increasing the social safety net, protecting Social Security, improving the environment/stopping global warming, improving tax fairness for the poor and middle class, raising the minimum wage and earned income tax credit, improving education, enhancing women’s and civil rights, rebuilding the economy and helping the poor and middle class). Fundamental change (e.g., civil rights, global warming recognition, the end of apartheid, the right to vote for women) takes significant time and effort by experienced and visionary leaders. Now that the country has seen the disastrous results of Republican rule with Bush/Cheney, it will be easier to get the change we need. Sen. Clinton has worked for most of her adult life as a national leader to change this country away from Republicanism towards Democratic ideals. She is the person to continue to lead that change, not someone who has for the most part been a bystander in the important Democratic fights of our times.

CLOSING

Despite all the media hype and meaningless polls, Sen. Clinton is likely to be more electable in a general election than Sen. Obama for all of the reasons outlined above. Voters must ask themselves, without all the media hype, who do they really think is most qualified, given their past experience, to be President right now? I believe, most Democrats, if they are honest, think it is Sen. Clinton. This begs the question. If a voter really thinks Sen. Clinton is more qualified to be President, why are they letting the media decide how they should vote? Maybe it’s time for voters to start thinking for themselves.



Recommended Articles to Read for Undecided Voters:

"Battle-Tested," Joseph Wilson, Huffington Post, 2/13/08
"Kennedy's For Clinton," Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and Kerry Kennedy, Los Angeles Times, 1/29/08
"Women Are Never Front-Runners," Gloria Steinem, The New York Times, 1/8/08
"Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton," Editorial, The New York Times, 1/25/08
"Drift away from Clinton frustrates many women," Robin Abcarian, Los Angeles Times, 3/2/08
"Democratic nominee: Clinton is better prepared," Editorial, The Denver Post, 2/1/08
"Clinton, Obama, Insurance," Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 2/4/08
"Obama's Hollow 'Judgment' and Empty Record,” Joseph Wilson, Huffington Post, 3/2/08
"Clinton vs. Obama on Electability," Chris Cillizza, Washingtonpost.com, 2/11/08
"Why Hillary, Not Obama Is The Democrat To Beat McCain," Mark Penn, Real Clear Politics, 2/11/08"
"The Obama Mystery," David Igatius, The Washington Post, 2/17/08

"Hillary's Edge," Gail Collins, The New York Times, 3/6/08

And if you want a good laugh---see the new Jack Nicholson ad for Hillary Clinton at Huffington Post


Additional Selected Articles (Many Utilized in Article)

"The press will torment Obama, too," Eric Boehlter, Media Matters, 2/28/08
"Hate Springs Eternal," Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 2/11/08
"Media Expert Decries Campaign Coverage," Beth, Fouhy, Associated Press, 3/2/08
2/23/08 SNL parody of Debates and SNL Tina Fey Commentary on Sen. Clinton
3/1/08 SNL Debate Parody and Sen. Clinton Response
CNN Clip on Pro Obama Press Coverage
“Obama's European Problem,” Joe Conason, Salon.com, 12/29/07
"For Obama, A Taste Of What A Long Battle Would Hold," Adam Nagourney, The New York Times, 2/29/08
"Effect of Sen. Obama's Candor Yet To Be Seen--Senator Admitted Trying Cocaine In a Memoir Published 11 Years Ago,” Lois Roman, Washingtonpost.com, 1/3/07
"Obama Walks A Difficult Path As He Courts Jewish Voters," Neelah Banerjee, International Herald Tribune, 3/1/08
“Did Obama Take Too Much Credit,” Lynn Sweet, SunTimes.com, 2/2/07
"Obama Echoes Deval Patrick...Again," Jake Tapper, ABCnews.com, 2/17/08
"Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake," Dave McKinney and Chris Fusco, Chicago Sun Times, 11/5/06
"An Obama Patron and Friend Until Indictment," Christopher Drew and Mike McIntire, The New York Times, 6/14/07
"FACT CHECK: Obama, His Contributor Rezko, the Slum Landlord Business," No Quarter, 1/25/08
"Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties To Fuel Rumors About Him,"Washingtonpost.com, 11/29/07
"Was Barack Obama A Muslim?" Daniel Pipes, FrontpageMagazine.com, 12/24/08
"Obama's Spiritual Mentor--Powerhouse Chicago Preacher Draws Attention and Plenty of Controversy," Michael Hill, BaltimoreSun.com, 1/16/08
"Did Michelle Obama take a swipe at Clinton?" Alexander Mooney and Martina Stewart, CNN.com, 8/31/07
“Michelle Obama Remark Stirs Controversy,” Huffington Post, 2/19/08
”Obama speaks with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski” MSNBC, 11/13/07
"Obama may face grilling on patriotism--No flag pin, no hand over his heart: Is he exposed?" MSNBC.com, 2/24/08
"McCain Presses Obama on Pledge About Public Funds," Glenn Kessler and Jonathan Weisman, Washingtonpost.com, 2/21/08
"The Ever -'Present' Obama," Nathan Bonzales, Real Clear Politics, 2/13/07
"Obama's Complex History With Lobbyists," Christopher Wills, Washingtonpost.com, 12/2/07
“Hillary Clinton Works With Republicans More Frequently Than Sen. Obama,” The Fact Hub--Hillary Clinton website, 2/29/08

"Obama's Ties to Left Come Under Scrutiny," Russell, Berman, NYSun.com, 3/6/08

"Obama once visited 60's radicals," Ben Smith, Politico.com, 2/22/08

"Public Divided on Whether Obama Has Necessary Experience," Jeffrey Jones, Gallup.com, 3/4/08.

Copyright 2008


Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)