In It To Win It

Kevin Drum says he's leaning toward Hillary. I lean the other way, but I agree with the idea that Obama's "Kumbaya campaigning schtick leaves me cold. Worse than that, in fact: it leaves me terrified that he just doesn't know what he's up against with the modern Republican Party and won't have the instinct to go for the jugular when the inevitable Swift Boating commences." I agree. In the early days of Barack Obama's campaign I thought he had this exactly right; that the thing to do was to mildly annoy Chris Bowers by lying like hell about a professed desire to unite the country while recognizing that politics is a blood sport played for high stakes against unrelenting foes in which the only thing that matters is getting the number of votes you need to win.

Now I have my doubts.

In particular, if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee, I want to see a Democrat who will, enthusiastically, smear him through his association with Alan Placa and sundry other corrupt figures and whose staff will feel intensely comfortable asking supporters to cut $2,300 checks to a third party pro-life challenger. Someone who's in it to win it, and isn't trying to prove anything other than his (or her) ability to win the election. Hillary Clinton is that person and I'm not so sure Barack Obama is.

At the end of the day, though, I'm happy to play the youthful idealist here, and note Clinton seems to have so much less in the way of upside — not just or even especially as a candidate — than do Obama or Edwards. I could imagine either of them successfully taking advantage of the disastrous failure of the Bush presidency to rebrand liberalism as the mainstream ideology of our time. Clinton, by contrast, will bring back competent centrist technocracy and basic morality to the White House. That'd be good, but I think the country's at a place where we can do better right now than a simple reversion to what we had before Bush and I, at least, would like to hold out for more.

Comments

The main reason not to prefer a Hillary presidency is that she has bitter, sworn enemies in Washington. Obama doesn't, and he's not likely to make many.

Posted by Bill | October 30, 2007 6:31 PM

"I could imagine either (Edwards or Obama) successfully taking advantage of the disastrous failure of the Bush presidency to rebrand liberalism as the mainstream ideology of our time."

At the core, that's why I support Edwards.

-----

As far as Drum's comments go:

"I agree with the idea that Obama's "Kumbaya campaigning schtick leaves me cold."

Obama is pre-2006 Joe Lieberman without the nutty foreign policy.

"it leaves me terrified that he just doesn't know what he's up against with the modern Republican Party and won't have the instinct to go for the jugular when the inevitable Swift Boating commences."

Perhaps, but probably not.

Obama isn't going for the jugular because Team Obama has a timescale that goes beyond 2008.

Posted by Petey | October 30, 2007 6:35 PM

Obama's idea of hard campaigning is to gay-bait and to tell lies about Social Security. I'm done with this guy.

Posted by Bloix | October 30, 2007 6:40 PM

Obama is the status-quo candidate, I think. There was always something that struck me as wrong about him, although on a personal note I like him. Really. He's just one of those people that has no business being a politician.

It's not enough to brand liberalism as mainstream, you need to knock Republicanism out of that spot in order to do it, and Obama with his go-along to get-along attitude just really has no chance in this environment. If he's going to prove that he can do it, he needs to do it NOW, and get prominent moderate Republicans to publicly back his run. Until that happens, I'll continue to believe that his path just leads back to the ivory tower.

Posted by Karmakin | October 30, 2007 6:40 PM

I could imagine either of them successfully taking advantage of the disastrous failure of the Bush presidency to rebrand liberalism as the mainstream ideology of our time.

I think this will remain firmly in your imagination. The country may hate Bush, but it's not going to become thoroughly liberal no matter how many times liberal pundits click their heels.

Posted by Homer | October 30, 2007 6:42 PM

"The country may hate Bush, but it's not going to become thoroughly liberal no matter how many times liberal pundits click their heels."

That's what liberals thought about the nation ever accepting Movement Conservatism in 1979...

Posted by Petey | October 30, 2007 6:44 PM

Edwards would be the best candidate (!think down-ticket!) and the best President.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | October 30, 2007 6:47 PM

This post--and particularly "Someone who's in it to win it, and isn't trying to prove anything other than his (or her) ability to win the election. Hillary Clinton is that person and I'm not so sure Barack Obama is."--is exactly where I am.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 30, 2007 6:49 PM

Obama really pissed off the base this week.

Posted by Petey | October 30, 2007 6:52 PM

"Obama is pre-2006 Joe Lieberman without the nutty foreign policy."

The most stupid comment ever; Joe Lieberman is and always was a Republican in every way. Obama is no Lieberman and never will be.

Posted by Jennifer | October 30, 2007 6:53 PM

Why does this post assume a Sophie's Choice between Tough-But-Wrong Clinton and Squishy-But-Idealistic Obama, when Tough-And-Right-On-The-Issues Edwards is out there? For Christ's sake, Yglesias, at least pretend to be spouting something other than warmed-over Beltway CW.

Posted by Christmas | October 30, 2007 6:55 PM

With Clinton you know what you're going to get: one shade to the left of the Republican mainstream.

I'm going to roll the dice and go for Obama. He's obviously brilliant. If only he'd start smashing windows. It is indeed time to start smearing the enemy.

Posted by chris m. | October 30, 2007 6:56 PM

Obama really pissed off the base this week.

Or a part of it. If it's a net vote win for him, I think better of him already. But the proof of the pudding is in the voting.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 30, 2007 6:57 PM

"Joe Lieberman is and always was a Republican in every way. Obama is no Lieberman and never will be."

Lieberman actually had a pretty good Democratic voting record on non-foreign policy issues, pre-2006.

Lieberman's non-foreign policy problem was always his desire to play kumbaya across-the-aisle politics at the expense of visibly standing with the base.

Posted by Petey | October 30, 2007 6:57 PM

"Why does this post assume a Sophie's Choice between Tough-But-Wrong Clinton and Squishy-But-Idealistic Obama, when Tough-And-Right-On-The-Issues Edwards is out there?"

Patience. The media will get tired of the two-way race in a while.

Edwards loses very little by drafting right now.

This race is the '84 nomination race. Mondale/Clinton beats up Glenn/Obama during the invisible primary, letting Hart/Edwards leap forward out of nowhere once voting starts.

(And I know that Mondale ended up winning the nomination, but the calendar is different this year in ways that advantage an early state winner.)

Posted by Petey | October 30, 2007 7:02 PM

Tough ... Edwards

Que?

Posted by Gabriel | October 30, 2007 7:04 PM

I really am not a fan of how much value pundits like to put into campaigns as a proxy to how a candidate will perform in a different situation later. Obviously it was disastrous with Bush, where it was catastrophically believed that his ability to win campaigns would indicate his ability to succeed in office, and where the same logic applied to poor campaigners like Gore and Kerry helped to sink better alternative candidates.

It's true that how Obama campaigns against Clinton is probably partially relevant to how he'll campaign in the general election just because they're both campaigns. But can't we at least have some benefit of the doubt that maybe Obama has been fairly civil against Clinton because he actually feels that most differences between him and her are relatively minor and that she would be a decent president? As much as I want a candidate who can out dogfight the Republicans, isn't it even better to have a candidate who can tell the difference between a political ally he's running against and a true unscrupulous political opposite that should be fought through all means necessary?

Now, that is not saying that Obama has shown me that he definitely can in fact fight in the general election. I just don't take him being respectful to Hillary as being evidence that he can't.

Posted by Will Hutchinson | October 30, 2007 7:19 PM

Kevin Drum says he's leaning toward Hillary. I lean the other way..

With Hillary you can lean either way.

Posted by gregor | October 30, 2007 7:23 PM

Like SCMT, this is right where I'm at. I want both a progressive and a fighter. Clinton at least gives me one; after this week I'm not sure Obama gives me either. I find myself wishing Edwards would do something dramatic to shake things up, rather than just wait for the press to get bored with the other two. It occurs to me that Edwards-Dodd would be attractive pairing even if it is two more white guys.

Posted by Ryan | October 30, 2007 7:24 PM

The late 90s era Democratic Party is pretty good, if you believe that there was an underlying desire to get something done about health care that just wouldn't happen with a GOP majority. It's really just getting out of the current foreign policy box that's the tough part. And I'm fairly convinced that Clinton has no interest in doing this ... indeed, given an opportunity to make the critique-from-the-right of her opponents, she's done so.

I think there's a possibility for Obama to give a real knock-it-out-of-the-park answer on the whole McClurkin thing tonight.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | October 30, 2007 7:27 PM

Obama isn't going for the jugular because Team Obama has a timescale that goes beyond 2008.

Well, that's fucking stupid, if you pardon my French.

Where does he go? Hillary's not going to pick him for Veep, the Illinois governorship isn't up for election until 2010, and a long Senate career turns you into John Kerry or Joe Biden.

The US is slumbering towards President Giuliani, and I for one will be taking advantage of my non-blue passport to get the hell out of Dodge before the crazy sheriff takes over.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 30, 2007 7:30 PM

And yeah, the Village Idiots are declaring Edwards done because they really want a two-horse race. Well, fuck that shit.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 30, 2007 7:34 PM

"I think there's a possibility for Obama to give a real knock-it-out-of-the-park answer on the whole McClurkin thing tonight."

Will the topic even come up? I've had MSNBC on in the background for the past few hours while they've been discussing the race non-stop, and no one has even mentioned it once.

(And BTW, MSNBC has decided that it's officially a two-way race. I've heard about 7 pundits all repeat variations on "Edwards is dead". And as an Edwards partisan, I don't think that's entirely a bad thing in terms of setting the stage.)

Posted by Petey | October 30, 2007 7:37 PM

"Where does he go?"

Dude's 46. He's got a long enough shelf-life to be thinking about 2016.

Posted by Petey | October 30, 2007 7:39 PM

Sadly, I think Obama is playing for 2nd place and a spot on the ticket. And no matter how nice he is, I can't see Hillary choosing him for VP.

Obama's best move right now, IMHO, would be to step up and attack Giuliani's foreign policy insanity. He's uniquely well positioned to do it (Hillary can't follow), he'd costlessly fire up the Yglesias and Drum faction, and he would avoid the predictability of petulantly attacking Hillary b/c she's ahead of him in the lunch line.

Posted by southpaw | October 30, 2007 7:39 PM

"I find myself wishing Edwards would do something dramatic to shake things up, rather than just wait for the press to get bored with the other two."

He's been calmly laying out the case against Clinton for months now, and I expect he'll continue to do so tonight.

But the only way he's going to shake things up in terms of media perception is to get the good Democratic folks of Iowa to validate his candidacy. And that will certainly shake things up.

Posted by Petey | October 30, 2007 7:44 PM

Obama isn't going for the jugular because Team Obama has a timescale that goes beyond 2008.

Oh, please. Team Obama is completely out to lunch. If he blows this opportunity to distinguish himself -- not win, just distinguish himself, mind you -- it is fucking OVER for him.

I just think there is a level of arrogance in him -- and his loudmouth wife -- that makes him totally ineffective. I think he is so taken with himself -- or his concept of himself -- that he is totally incapable of being briefed on anything.

Posted by Econobuzz | October 30, 2007 7:53 PM

Maybe, Petey, maybe . . . but has a failed VP candidate ever subsequently won the presidency? I can't think of one.

Posted by southpaw | October 30, 2007 7:54 PM

"has a failed VP candidate ever subsequently won the presidency?"

I'd guess there are multiple others as well, but right off the top of my head, this obscure guy qualifies...

Posted by Petey | October 30, 2007 7:59 PM

I am chagrined.

Posted by southpaw | October 30, 2007 8:08 PM

Obama's best move right now, IMHO, would be to step up and attack Giuliani's foreign policy insanity.

Posted by southpaw

I think this is spot on. And, if he doesn't do it, he won't be able to run for dog catcher successfully from here on out.

Posted by Econobuzz | October 30, 2007 8:12 PM

Someone who's in it to win it, and isn't trying to prove anything other than his (or her) ability to win the election.

I hope you are just referring to "isn't trying to prove anything about his/her campaign style," not that the person has no political goals other than getting into the White House. That is what Bush was in 2000 and it hasn't worked out so well for (non-neo)conservatives.

Posted by Glaivester | October 30, 2007 8:15 PM

I actually think Obama will do a good job running hard against whatever candidate the GOP puts up. Because the Republican can be counted on to go viciously negative, he'll be able to go right back after them, while presenting his attacks as simply a case of fighting back against Republican divisiveness, fear and smear, hate-mongering, etc. He can still run on the cheery message that the American people want unity, while claiming the the ruling clique of the Republican party are a bunch of hate-filled, fanatical Evil Dead who have even lost touch with much of their own base (a message which has the merit of being actually true).

The problem isn't the Republicans. It's that he hasn't figured out how to run against Clinton. He seems to have imagined he was starting even, and just needed to pit his own positive message against hers. But Clinton has a built in advantage because of long familiarity, political connections and a political machine, name recognition and the celebrity cult following of other check-out line celebrities. She comes with a large package of pre-committed supporters. Obama's challenge is to pry a large number of them away from her. Doing that requires more than marginal superiority on a few policy issues. You need to find something that make a dramatic, big impact based on a stark, major contrast. Clinton comes into the contest as the favorite, already wearing the champion's belt. You usually don't beat the champ on points - you need some knockdowns.

Ultimately Obama has to figure out whether he thinks it is really important that he wins. If he thinks Clinton will do more or less just as good a job as he would, then why the hell is he even in the race? If he does think that there are differences between him and Clinton that are extremely important, then he needs to tell voters what they are. And he needs to do so in a way that conveys just how extremely important those differences are, rather than put them forward as a few respectful differences and demurrals on a couple of issues.

Finally, both Obama and Edwards need to confront the sexist gender double-standard at work in this race. They continue to act like two squires attending the Queen Bee. If Clinton was a man, does anyone honestly think she would be getting the gentle ride she is getting now from her opponents?

Posted by Dan Kervick | October 30, 2007 8:17 PM

dudes a baller -- i still gotta believe hell know when its deuce.

Posted by matt | October 30, 2007 8:24 PM

Regarding whether or not Obama has what it takes to take on the Republicans, I think Will makes a very good point:

"Now, that is not saying that Obama has shown me that he definitely can in fact fight in the general election. I just don't take him being respectful to Hillary as being evidence that he can't."

Thanks Will.

Regarding another issue raised in the above post (and discussed in the comments), I find it disappointing that so many people (including Kevin and Matt, for whom I have a great deal of respect) continue to refer to Obama's efforts to engage voters who have not traditionally supported Democrats, as "kumbaya" politics.

I've heard this characterization of Obama's strategy from many on the "Left"- though more often on the more partisan (political) liberal blogs such as Daily Kos, MyDD, and Eschaton (Atrios); and it always seemed to me to reflect a deep misunderstanding of what Obama is (and has been) trying to accomplish.

Unlike people like Joe Lieberman, who in my mind represents the worst type of "bipartisan" politician, Obama has never compromised or sought to compromise his progressive values or positions in his efforts to reach out to Republicans in Congress (or the Illinois Senate) or to more traditionally "conservative" Americans (e.g. Evangelicals). Obama's viewpoint, I believe, is that while there may be much that he, and say, Evangelicals disagree on (abortion, gay rights etc.), there is much on which they can find common ground (their sense of faith, their concerns about health and well-being of our children, and even poverty).

Obama, I think, understands (as many of us do) that his positions on these issues, which are uniformly PROGRESSIVE positions, represent the best way to support American (and especially middle and working class) families and promote American values and ideals.

However, Obama also seems to understand that before people will listen to him, they have to feel that they can trust him, that they can identify with him.

Obama's strategy, therefore, has not been simply "let's all just get along"; it has been, let's find what we have in common, let's focus on the values that we DO share, and build off that, and through that build some trust. Then once that is accomplished we can, over time, work to convince those who will now listen, that our views really do reflect what is best about America, and what is best for American families (e.g. universal health care, a more progressive and fair tax code, making work pay by expanding the EITC etc.).

This is not "kumbaya" politics (and is it certainly not Joe Lieberman-type politics which continually sacrifices progressive policies- and Democrats- at the alter of "bipartisanship); it is a strategy to promote and (as Matt noted above) make more mainstream, progressive values and policies.

I do understand the cynicism that many feel toward this type of strategy, and it does require a certain level of faith in the candidate who pursues it. The strategy is also risky and at times can backfire, as it did this past weekend in South Carolina. For those who distrust Obama or do not believe in this strategy, it is easy to understand their harsh opposition to him, particularly when he makes mistakes. However, I think his history on progressive issues and his commitment to progressive values is very clear and provide the best indicator of what type of President he would be if elected.

(PS. My sincere apologies for the length of this post. A)

Posted by Aaron M | October 30, 2007 8:26 PM

"Unlike people like Joe Lieberman, who in my mind represents the worst type of "bipartisan" politician, Obama has never compromised or sought to compromise his progressive values or positions in his efforts to reach out to Republicans"

Fair enough.

Lieberman is an extreme comparison that doesn't fully depict Obama's path.

Posted by Petey | October 30, 2007 8:31 PM

Huzzah! Edwards just got the NH SEIU!

Posted by Petey | October 30, 2007 8:33 PM

The problem isn't the Republicans. It's that he hasn't figured out how to run against Clinton.

Well, if he can't figure out how to run against Clinton, when he was against a war that she voted for -- a war that Americans think is the most important issue of the election and 2/3 are opposed to -- in an anti-war state, with $30 million dollars, how could he EVER run effectively against a republican candidate and the right-wing slime machine?

Posted by Econobuzz | October 30, 2007 8:35 PM

Now, that is not saying that Obama has shown me that he definitely can in fact fight in the general election. I just don't take him being respectful to Hillary as being evidence that he can't.

I agree with this 100%. We've seen flashes.

Frankly, the problem isn't Obama's skill in any public setting - his skill, personally. His policy advisors are fantastic. The problem is his campaign advisors themselves. They're definitely not up to the task. They let him down this week.

I wish the netroots hadn't gone so crazy about Obama 's one lousy antigay pastor shooting off his mouth. It's the kind of interest-group politics of symbolism that will destroy us from the inside. But Obama should have been ready for it and never let it happen in the first place.

By the way, I agree with Matt 100% that we can and should do better than HRC.

Posted by glasnost | October 30, 2007 8:46 PM

"I wish the netroots hadn't gone so crazy about Obama 's one lousy antigay pastor shooting off his mouth."

Actually, my impression is that the reaction has been pretty contained. I would say that it's been more disappointment than anything else.

Posted by Rihilism | October 30, 2007 9:00 PM

Ugh. I cannot, will not, ever vote for Clinton. She is wrong on the biggest issue of our day. No number of small issues make up for that. If Edwards and Obama continue to split the anti-Hillary vote, I'm seriously considering voting for Colbert.

Posted by Just Karl | October 30, 2007 9:10 PM

My complaint with Obama is why did he enter the race if it wasn't to win? If HRC is a bad choice, why half-ass it when doing so makes it more likely that she wins the nomination by splitting the not-Hillary vote in two?
My only two answers are a)Obama actually thought he could cruise on the cult of personality and would win b)Obama is all about Obama and is campaigning solely to raise his profile.
Neither one of those answers cast him in a good light but I at least hope the man is not a prick with a giant ego.

Did I mention how much I like corn, hogs, Iowans and that I worked for FarmAid and dated a lovely girl from the Quad Cities?

Posted by Vote for Edwards | October 30, 2007 9:33 PM

The problem with Obama (and for that matter, Hillary) stepping up and attacking the Republicans now is because he can't.

His (and her) foreign policy is not significantly different from theirs. Certainly not enough to make a distinction in simple terms for the electorate.

Both of them intend to let the Iraq war continue well into their administrations. The electorate doesn't want that.

Both of them are demonizing Iran. The electorate may not like Iran (ignorant that they are), but they damn sure don't want a war with Iran.

So where do they distinguish themselves in the area of foreign policy - which is THE dominant issue of this election - from the Republicans?

They can't do it. The best they can do is try not to appear as insane as Giuliani.

Good luck winning the election on that basis.

I think it's fairly clear based on the 2006 elections that the Democrats have a lead against the Republicans based on their supposed - and actually non-existent - "anti-war" stance with the electorate. But that lead is not very strong or credible after a year of Democratic inability to do anything about the war. Never mind the "we don't have the votes" excuse - that isn't understood or accepted by the electorate as anything but an excuse.

Finally, I STILL have not heard ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT or their supporters say what they will do or how it will affect the election if Bush starts a war with Iran before the elections.

NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT has said ONE WORD about that.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 30, 2007 9:50 PM

Sadly, I think Obama is playing for 2nd place and a spot on the ticket. And no matter how nice he is, I can't see Hillary choosing him for VP.

Sometimes I think this is what his supporters want, too... they want to place an "honorable second," and then pat themselves on the back about what a good-natured, high-minded campaign they participated in. I feel like I've come face to face with Adlai Stevenson supporters transported to the 21st century from 1952.

Posted by Tyro | October 30, 2007 9:50 PM

"By the way, I agree with Matt 100% that we can and should do better than HRC."

We can and should do no better than what we actually end up with. Electing a president is such a complex historical event that it approaches climate. That is not to be fatalistic, certainly you can try to affect the process in 2004-2007, but somewhere in time you have to say:"This, not something else, is what happened."
Al Gore ain't running.

I think Petey is all wet about the dynamics of early Edwards' victories. 5 consecutive primary victories ain't gonna force the MSM to give him the "dominant momentum" to pick up the states Clinton has under control, because the MSM understands 50-state strategy. John McCain never really had a chance against Bush, even if he had won SC, and the media coverage was a very cynical game for their own entertainment. And like McCain, Edwards will run into a wall, and be written off as incompetent to capitalize on the psuedo-momentum. Cruel.

I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by bob mcmanus | October 30, 2007 9:55 PM

Tim Russert looks (and sounds) terrible.

Posted by nbt | October 30, 2007 10:20 PM

Well, it has been over for a while, and those who cannot stomach Hillary should not watch any more debates. She took their best shots, and came away unsullied. Maybe it is that she is the only grown up in the crowd, but I cannot see her losing the nomination or the election.

Posted by Ernie | October 31, 2007 12:37 AM

Really Ernie? I thought she sounded ridiculous when she wouldn't give a straight answer on the driver's license issue. She also sounded silly when she kept talking about a bipartisan commission for Social Security. "Elect me, and I'll appoint some old guys to deal with this!"

Posted by nbt | October 31, 2007 1:21 AM

Hillary won't just viciously, knife-fightingly attack republicans. She'll be just as vicious in attacking anyone with a whiff of leftism about him.

Posted by yoyo | October 31, 2007 3:22 AM

Maybe Edwards's moment start now. There's obviously a lot of resistance to the idea of a Clinton restoration. And if Obama really is looking a bit shaky right now, perhaps it's time to give Edwards a second look. I believe those who say he's be awfully tough to beat -- especially down ticket. And the one thing I want more than a Democratic White House is a Democratic White House with deeper Democratic majorities in Congress. Edwards spent 20 years doing battle against some of the richest, toughest, meanest motherfuckers in existence, insurance companies. I'm sure he possesses the toughness to take it hard to Rudy. I kinda like the sound of Edwards-Obama.

Posted by Jasper | October 31, 2007 3:23 AM

How Dems can support those in the presidential race that have enabled the biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam and the killing of 100s of thousands of innocent people without batting an eyelid is beyond me.

Posted by novakant | October 31, 2007 6:00 AM

No its cool because the frontrunner also fucked up the biggest policy proposal democrats have tried in the last 15 years if not more. See, its experience

Posted by yoyo | October 31, 2007 6:52 AM

The main reason not to prefer a Hillary presidency is that she has bitter, sworn enemies in Washington. Obama doesn't, and he's not likely to make many.

Nerts. FDR had bitter, sworn enemies.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 31, 2007 10:23 AM

Matt's last paragraph is completely spot-on: it lays out the Democrats' options perfectly. I will take Clinton--to me, the limited up-side is more than compensated by the guarantee of success, both in November and for her presidential term(s). I'd prefer a successful Obama or Edwards presidency to a successful Clinton presidency (on the candidates' own terms), but I don't trust Obama and Edwards to get to the presidency (see Matt's 2nd paragraph, also brilliant), and I don't trust their ability to turn aspirations into reality if elected.

This isn't a reflexive preference on my part- if a genuinely conservative Democrat with Clinton's skills were running, I would definitely back Obama or Edwards. But Clinton is only incrementally less progressive than them, and on some issues she is more progressive, so to me it's a clear choice.

Posted by Rich | October 31, 2007 1:08 PM

Obama's "kumbaya" politics, coupled with sharper rhetoric, mean the difference between a Hillary 51%-49% victory in 08 and an Obama 55%-45% victory. Which would you prefer?

His candidacy will also make a huge difference in downticket races. Hillary will rally the 24 percenters who might have sat the election out. While they'll go to the polls to vote against Hillary, they'll also have the opportunity to vote for a Republican congressman, senator, etc. Let's think smart, people!

Also, should he make it to the general, Obama will obviously have free reign to hit back as hard against the GOP as anybody, and I think he will. Right now he's in the primary and getting his hands too dirty could prevent him from picking up Hillary supporters. Better to let Edwards take care of the wetwork and give just enough licks to let people know he can scrap with the best of them, which he did last night.

Posted by waka waka | October 31, 2007 2:49 PM