The Game Plan

Much of HIllary Clinton's game plan for a comeback makes sense, and it's worth recalling that the Iowa --> New Hampshire --> victory chain that John Kerry put together in 2004 was anomalous. Point six, though, I don't get:

6. Run against the idea of John McCain as the Republican nominee; in other words, who's better to face McCain: Clinton or Obama?

Um . . . Obama as best I can tell. There are no sure things in this world, but the main things that come to mind about John McCain's electoral strengths are his appeal to independents vaguely disgruntled with politics-as-usual and his appeal to the press, both things that Obama seems much better suited to counter. He's a formidable opponent either way, but this certainly isn't a consideration that cuts clearly in Clinton's favor.

Comments

It is over for Obama. The US Press and Clintons are now all set to attack and demolish him:

1. Obama is a Muslim. His middle name is Hussain.

2. Obama is not experienced. (But, I/HRC/Hillary is experienced for 35-years, but due to national security and my husband, I am unable to show my papers. Besides, the Press/My friends does not want.)

3. Obama sells drugs. (But, my husband did not inhale, and he did not do anything unethical/illegal/immoral in the White House. We are the best.)

4. Obama is not a democrat. He gets support from outsiders/bad Americans (independents, GOP). (Only I and my husband are true Democrats.)

5. In Senate, I did everything. (I just latch onto any idea that is good as a co-sponsor. Hey, that is all about being a team player).

Etc.

It is over for Obama.

US Lawyers: Please sue the US Press, as they are violating the Freedom of the Press ammendment.

Posted by eorse | January 4, 2008 10:12 AM

There is a lot I don't like about Obama (homophobes, social security BS, non-universality, attacking Krugman, etc.), but he is the only one of the three who would get positive press.

I just hope he doesn't believe his own rhetoric. He's been in the Senate long enough to know that Kumbaya is BS.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | January 4, 2008 10:12 AM

The Iowa results were skewed by Republicans crossing over to vote against Clinton. Last night, MSNBC (I think) reported entrance poll data showing that Democrats participating in the Democratic caucus were evenly split between the top three candidates. Those votes went mostly to Obama and came mostly from Romney. Without crossovers, the results would not seem so revolutionary.

Posted by gm | January 4, 2008 10:17 AM

The theory on McCain Matt is that Obama loses his Media Darling mantle against McCain.

That seems true to me.

Posted by Armando | January 4, 2008 10:18 AM

The theory on McCain Matt is that Obama loses his Media Darling mantle against McCain.

And Obama is vulnerable to the Experience charge to McCain.

In essence, the Media could narrate that McCain is Obama with experience.

That seems true to me.

But McCain will be hard to beat by any Dem.

Posted by Armando | January 4, 2008 10:19 AM

No way on earth did Romneyites jump ship Dem-side to sabotage Hillary's electoral chances. That's the most fantastic thing I've ever heard. It's CW that Hillary's got the worst shot in the general-all the cynical conservative operators are actually salivating over the opportunity to say mean things about her. I'm 99 percent of the voters at the Iowa caucus actually voted for whoever the hell it is they wanted to win.

Posted by gerontion | January 4, 2008 10:22 AM

> The theory on McCain Matt is that Obama
> loses his Media Darling mantle against McCain.

The traditional media can create a surge of coverage and attention where no organic enthusiasm exists (which they did for McCain in the 2000 primaries and Bush in the 2000 general). They can't stop or even sail against a powerful organic surge of individual enthusiasm. I don't much like Obama but I have personally observed that organic surge in the Midwest.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 4, 2008 10:23 AM

In essence, the Media could narrate that McCain is Obama with experience.

That seems true to me.

In what alternative universe is this even remotely true?

Posted by bill | January 4, 2008 10:27 AM

Obama is severely, perhaps critically lacking in First Lady experience.

Posted by El Cid | January 4, 2008 10:30 AM

> n what alternative universe is this even
> remotely true?

I take it you haven't read much Armando/Big Tent Democrat? The person is the closest thing the human race has ever seen to omniscience. Anyone who dares doubt his incredible predictive ability will come in for a well-deserved sarcastic roasting. Especially if they ask for a chain of evidence/reasoning.

Sort of reminds me of the tap dance scene in "Chicago".

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 4, 2008 10:31 AM

Also, to the extent that Matt is right that Iraq will become a big issue again as the festering sores open up, McCain will suffer from that.

Obama, who voted against the war (even if not in the Senate at the time), will be in a much better spot to take advantage of that fact than Ms. Kyle-Lieberman, I-voted-for-the-war-without-due-diligence-but-won't-say-it-was-a-mistake Clinton.

Posted by Adam | January 4, 2008 10:32 AM

There's no way McCain's a threat to Obama. The dems like Obama, and McCain is hated enough by republicans that they'd vote D or just not vote at all just to spite him (if they weren't voting for Hillary). Who gives a crap who wins the media darling contest (which McCain still won't win)? That's never been a plus for a party that thinks everything that comes out of CNN is liberal propaganda. By backing the war and immigration reform, the big Mc C has managed to alienate 70 percent of the electorate. He'd tank hard in the general.

Posted by gerontion | January 4, 2008 10:36 AM

Under *normal* circumstances, I don't think Obama has much to fear from McCain. Just read e.g. the NRO Corner if you don't believe me: it seems most conservatives still hate McCain. He just isn't popular with his own base, which seems fairly demoralized right now BTW.
---
Of course, the wild card is there might be another 9/11 before the election... If I were a conservative, I would hold my nose and choose McCain rather than e.g. Huck or Romney since he is the only GOP candidate who might have a chance provided national security and experience become the *only* important criteria.

MARCU$

Posted by MARCU$ | January 4, 2008 10:38 AM

Look, I am not saying it is true. I am saying that is what the Media MIGHT do.

But let me ask you folks a question, are you DENYING that McCain has been given by the Media a "straight talking" Maverick nonpartisan independent image? Is it not true that they bestowed on McCain the image of someone willing to reach across Party lines?

Is he not considered experienced?

But my gawd, let's ignore the validity of my argument because I am an arrogant asshole.

That makes sense.

And for the record, I predicted Obam would win a while ago. So yes, I am omniscient.

Posted by Armando | January 4, 2008 10:42 AM

I don't get why "the Iowa --> New Hampshire --> victory chain that John Kerry put together in 2004 was anomalous". The sample size is 9 (will be ten once there's is an '08 nominee). Even if Kerry were the only IA->NH->Nominee and all of the other election cycles were comparable, calling one out of 9 an anamoly isn't obviously correct.

All 9 are not comparable. Of the 9, 2 aren't valid comparisons, b/c there was a Dem incumbent.

Kerry wasn't the only IA->NH->Nominee. In '76, Carter was the "winner" (uncommitted doesn't count) and then went on to win NH and the nomination. So, if Obama goes "Iowa --> New Hampshire --> victory", we'd have 3 out of 8 getting the nomination that way. Hardly anamolous, possibly predictive.

Posted by zaleriana | January 4, 2008 10:45 AM

Obama is severely, perhaps critically lacking in First Lady experience.

For the win.

Posted by J.B. | January 4, 2008 10:46 AM

It think that ultimately press narrative on McCain in the general would focus on how old he is. Not saying that's fair or not, just predicting. I think they'll think he had his chance in 2000. For them he's old news.

Kevin Drum had a great analysis some years ago about the window of time someone has to win the presidency that begins the day they first gain widespread national attention. It's shorter than you think, and McCain's well past it.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | January 4, 2008 10:48 AM

McCain "a formidable opponent either way" - Matt

"Bomb bomb Iran" and "100 years in Iraq"? That's a landslide right there; but I'd still prefer Huck, because I think he'd get us a few extra House and maybe even Senate seats.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 4, 2008 10:51 AM

I think Obama spikes McCain, I think McCain beats Hillary. I think the media flips the Armando narrative: Obama is McCain, but younger. This gets highlighted constantly, and McCain's war support sinks him.

I think Matt's right, in other words.

Posted by Sam | January 4, 2008 10:59 AM

No. 6 is obviously a bit weird; no. 4 is even worse. "Iowa is historically tough for women"? Is that serious? As opposed to Iowa's long history of electing a lot of black men?

I hope they try this; it would be such an easy response for the Obama camp. "This election is about a new kind of politics, one where calling the people of Iowa sexist isn't the way you win elections. I think the people of New Hampshire are just as tired of these divide and conquer games as the people of Iowa were."

Posted by jhupp | January 4, 2008 11:00 AM

Several of the items in the game plan make little sense to me.

3. Find some way to go negative against Obama. Some Clinton advisers and aides say that the campaign have a storehouse of opposition research -- old and new -- that they'll use against Obama. In Iowa, being directly associated with negative attacks is seen as uncouth and un-Midwestern; in New Hampshire, rude remarks are as welcome as questions and answers.

It is going to be extremely difficult for the Clintons to profit by going negative on Obama in New Hampshire - at least going negative in the personal sense that is driven by opposition research as opposed to issues. For one thing, the primary in on Tuesday. Negative personal attacks have a cycle: there is an initial period where voters are indignant and rally to defend the attacked candidate, and only over time do the negative attacks take their toll. When is Clinton planning on releasing this dirty stuff? If it comes out today or tomorrow, Obama and Edwards will team up to clean her clock in the debate tomorrow night. Also, while it is true that New Hampshire voters love rough-and-tumble politics, the idea that in New Hampshire "rude remarks are as welcome as questions and answers" is daffy. New Hampshire may be more east coast than Iowa, but it's not Brooklyn - and William Loeb is long gone. People like Obama, even the ones who are not planning on voting for him, and there will be a serious backlash against Clinton if she tears him down by leaving the issues for personal background.

4. Claim that Clinton never had a shot in Iowa because of the state's historical bias against women (it's only one of two to never have elected a woman as governor or member of Congress); that Edwards had cornered the Democratic vote and that Obama ran against the Democratic party and cornered the Democratic leading independents; that for a New Yorker to receive 25 percent of the vote or her is impressive (although.. I distinctly remember an HRC mailing calling her a Midwesterner).

Nobody will buy this absurd excuse-making. Everyone knows Clinton had a massive early lead in Iowa and blew it, and more Iowa women voted for Obama in the end than Clinton.

5. Point to Clinton's strength in New York, California and Florida; point out that Obama is bad in debates and that in contests that don't rely on retail politicking, she has an edge.

Well, there is going to be an actual debate tomorrow night, so no "pointing out" about how Obama is bad in debates will have any effect unless he actually does poorly in the debate, a prospect which is extremely doubtful. And of course the Obama campaign can counter with the claim that another skill that becomes more important on larger stages as the retail politicking aspects disappear is public speaking before large crowds a skill at which Obama evidently excels and beats Clinton hands down.

Finally, another thing that helps over the long haul is money, and I suspect the Obama campaign will announce soon that the Iowa victory has generated a massive windfall.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 4, 2008 11:03 AM

The theory on McCain Matt is that Obama loses his Media Darling mantle against McCain.

That seems true to me.

This makes no sense as an argument for Clinton. Even if this is true, how on earth does this make it better to run someone the media hates against the Straight Talkitude Express? Obama at least might fight the media to a draw, where Clinton v. McCain would be 2000 all over again.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | January 4, 2008 11:04 AM

jhupp, my thoughts exactly.

Posted by Chunche | January 4, 2008 11:05 AM

Yeah, Obama would definitely be stronger against McCain than Clinton.

Giuliani would have been a different story.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 4, 2008 11:10 AM

There's a point at which experience and maturity become old and lame. McCain is already teetering on that threshold. Obama's youth and charismatic vigor would knock him into the old Veterans home.

Posted by Bragan | January 4, 2008 11:10 AM

Note: The following was also posted in the comments section of the blog MY linked to. I'm reposting it here.

I'm curious about the ongoing impact of Edwards' stance that both he and Obama are the candidates of change and Clinton isn't. Edwards doesn't have a lot of money I keep hearing and I'm sure that's true but whatever press he gets can't be good for Clinton. One might argue that he splits the "change" vote, but that didn't seem to hurt Obama in Iowa (though Obama got lots of independent support...). Edwards' attacks on Clinton hurt her a lot in my opinion. He's a very good speaker and his message really resonates with Democratic values. I wonder what the real wonks have to say about this...

Posted by Hugh Simmons | January 4, 2008 11:11 AM

Scott:

The theory is a that having lost his Media Darling mantle, Obama then comes under Swift Boat attacks and the Media takes the bait. to wit, not only does Obama lose his Media Darling status, he becomes John Kerry to the Media.

And like Clinton faced with reagrd to Obama, Obama is restrained from attacking McCain.

In essence, the argument is the Media abandons Obama, and thus he loses his biggest asset.

That seems implausible to me. I have long proclaimed the main reason to be for Obama among three candidates with little stated differences on policy is precisely because he IS a Media Darling.

I think it very unlikely the Media turns on him.

The question the Clinton campaign wants you to ask yourself is this - what if they do? How does Obama withstand a hostile Media? Clinton has been there and done that.

If you accept their premise, it seems to me they DO have a point. I think it is rather silly to deny it.

I deny the premise.

Posted by Armando | January 4, 2008 11:12 AM

The media will abandon Obama as long as who he faces isn't Huckabee. If its McCain they'll flee by March. The difference is that the media despises Clinton whereas I doubt they'll pull a Gore on Obama.

Posted by Rob | January 4, 2008 11:16 AM

There isn't a wonk in the world who can explain the varieties of political opinion in this country.

With that said, there is probably some chunk of the electorate (maybe not vanishingly small) that sort of buys the Clintonian rhetoric of inevitability, but applies the logic to Edwards because he's a white dude, which really make him, from a long view, the more traditional, establishment candidate. There really seems to be a large group of people who think they just have to vote for Edwards because there are too many bigots in the country to risk nominating a woman or a black guy. So you might really see Edwards draw votes from what should be the Clinton pile of "establishment," centrist Democrat voters just on the basis of race and gender.

Posted by gerontion | January 4, 2008 11:21 AM

Yes, Hugh, I similarly wonder that when (not if, after finishing second in a state he had to win) Edwards drops out if a distinct majority of his support will shift to Obama given that Barak is the other anti-Hillary/anti-establishment candidate. But will Edwards union supporters and other old-school Democrats side with Hillary? In the end, I think Obama's magnetism will be too much for Hillary and anyone in the GOP field to overcome.

Posted by Bragan | January 4, 2008 11:25 AM

WHOLE lotta masturbating going on in this thread.

Posted by Bill | January 4, 2008 11:25 AM

Is everybody assuming that McCain is the presumptive nominee? Because I'm not convinced. He did come in fourth, after all. Iowa is a 'win' for McCain only in the sense that it was a 'loss' for Romney.

Sure McCain wins in New Hampshire, but Romney doesn't dry up and blow away after that (any more than Clinton does); he's still got a powerful organization and More Money Than God. McCain...not so much. Romney and Huckabee still hold the advantages (different advantages) on Super Tuesday.

Posted by Tom Hilton | January 4, 2008 11:41 AM

Clinton is done.

The major rationale for her candidacy just went out the window in Iowa. She is in a tough spot, she can't go negative or that will backfire, she has obviously failed to capture the change message from Obama, and for all her 'experience' she still came in 3rd in Iowa. Something big is happening here and she is simply not going to be able to stop the wave.

She really should be thinking about her graceful exit at this point so she can come out of this with her rep intact and perhaps compete for a spot in the Senate leadership next year.

Posted by DP | January 4, 2008 11:45 AM

I am turning against Obama largely on the geekish angle of not liking his economics team. But this election is not likely to turn on peoples' opinion of Austan Goolsbee. If the question comes down to who can draw the support of independents and new voters between Obama and McCain I don't even see a contest, it is Obama hands down.

The country is looking for a change. Some of us are hoping for realignment around a more traditional liberal agenda, in short a return to the optimism of the New Deal and belief in the powers of government to create positive change. Well Obama's not shaping up to be our guy. Others just want change period which operationally means ditching Bush and Clinton and the entire Boomer generation. Well for those people Obama is exactly the ticket. But there really is no way to tag McCain as any kind of change agent at all. He is essentially running on a message of 'Bushism done better'.

I am still hoping that Edwards can break out, and after that convinced that progressivism would be better served on net by Clinton. But electorally I believe that Obama would beat McCain like a drum. In a Change Year the contrast between Past and Future would just be too stark.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 4, 2008 11:59 AM

At this point, what is the point of Clinton's candidacy? She probably isn't going to get the nomination. If she does and somehow wins the general, she becomes either McGovern or Carter because her own party hates her and could easily stay home in 2010 and 2012. At best, she brings another 4-8 years of us yelling at each other about stupid shit. Her negatives would give her negative coattails when helping Congresspeople campaign, so that would mean no universal healthcare. At this point, she will be lucky to not be a bigger laughingstock than Kerry when she goes back to the Senate. Kerry at least surprised people by winning the nomination. Clinton was supposed to be inevitable and now looks pathetic. Kerry is probably going to be edged out of his Senate seat in the next few years (party leaders suggesting he retire, etc.) to make way for, most likely, Deval Patrick or Barney Frank.

As for McCain, I worry for him as a person that if he gets the nomination his body will let him done by November. It will be interesting to see if it is Obama vs. McCain and the press starts talking about McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh (the same on Bush and Rove claimed was black to smear McCain in SC), if ultra-conservative white voters just get so mad they either throw their support behind some random third party (Paul? Constitution Party? Whoever the Libertarians nominate if Paul doesn't want it?) and rob the Republicans of the hardcore racist vote. This would be even better if Obama picks Richardson or Webb and the press goes on about Webb's wife, Hong Le.

Posted by Reality Man | January 4, 2008 12:07 PM

DP Clinton raised $100 million dollars and yet still considered skipping Iowa to start with. The notion that she will fold her tent and fade away is ridiculous. This election is not like any election before. In the past the question was whether you could maintain momentum out of Iowa in the face of a disappointing result and the question generally turned on money, if people stopped writing checks it was game over maybe even before the three weeks to New Hampshire. Well now the front runners have money in the bank and effectively a one month campaign until Feb 3rd. Twenty years ago you were faced with the possibility of trying to hold out to the California primary in June. Well it is not in June anymore, the kind of calculations that let Iowa and New Hampshire be dispositive are no longer operative given the combination of huge fundraising and a compressed calender.

The Clinton's didn't get where they are by giving up in the face of a little adversity. Remember the 'Comeback Kid'? And if we had to play small ball I don't see how quitting the campaign now assists Hillary in getting a leadership position in a Congress convening in March 2009. If wishes were fishes we would all cast nets, unfortunately for all those who dislike Hillary hope is not a plan and she is not going anywhere

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 4, 2008 12:13 PM

The few grand that McCain's campaign spent in 2000 covering bar tabs and buying shrimp for the boys on the bus may turn out to be the biggest bargain since Peter Minuit bought Manhattan for $24.

Gosteleradio can't change their tune on him, because if he was Mr Right in 2000, and not in 2008, the media must either have been wrong then, or are wrong now, and the media are never wrong.

They'll drag McCain over the finish line or herniate themselves in the process.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | January 4, 2008 12:15 PM

That's remarkably optimistic, actually, Mr. Machina. I didn't think the collective memory of the media extended for longer than two weeks. I do know that it sure as hell doesn't extend for 8 years-even if the Media are "never wrong," what makes the pose possible is the ability to forget in short order all of the stupid things that got said.

Posted by gerontion | January 4, 2008 12:21 PM

I admit I was being a tad bit hyperbolic, but I really think that Obama has tapped into something significant here, has overcome (to a large extent) the questions of experience and electability. Hillary is not the campaigner Bill was.

One of the CW points going into this was that once people got to know her they would liker her more and that has not happened. She may have thought about skipping Iowa, but instead the poured resources into it and she came in third.

Obviously a lot can change and I don't really think this race is over, but I think Clinton is in a tough spot and barring some kind of Obama meltdown I just can't envision her pulling this off. But who knows.

Posted by DP | January 4, 2008 12:24 PM

They'll drag McCain over the finish line or herniate themselves in the process.

Then David Broder, Chris Matthews, et al., will be walking around bent over and in need of medical attention November, or sooner, because not even the mighty MSM can pull the lame McCain over this finish line.

Posted by Bragan | January 4, 2008 12:30 PM

Clinton's best chance is having Obama actually have to outline and defend his positions. When they were both having to do that his campaign faltered (and hers thrived).

Obama does best when he's the only candidate on stage and he lets his charisma loose (and no one's around asking troublesome questions and follow-ups that have to be answered).

Clinton does best in the give and take of dialogue about issues but can't really work a crowd into a frenzy of adoration (wild understatement).

I think either can wipe the floor with McCain who seems like the worst of Bush and Kerry put together.

One big question is how well will either stand up against swift-boating (can either take a big negative hit in the press and come back from it).

Dean for all his positives couldn't (and it was a pretty lame hit that took him out). Kerry couldn't. Obama is a big question mark because he hasn't taken any big hits yet.

Clinton has withstood a relentless negative republican barrage for 15 years and it hasn't stopped her yet. She can take hit after hit and still keep going.

Posted by michael farris | January 4, 2008 12:32 PM

One big question is how well will either stand up against swift-boating (can either take a big negative hit in the press and come back from it).

That is what scares me about Obama. He's gotten all this wonderful and fawning media coverage and may not understand that the press jackals can be vicious. Mike Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry all looked like a deer in the headlights when confronted with the right-wing noise machine as they had no clue it was coming.

I'm not a Hillary Clinton fan, but she already knows about what a Democratic nominee comes up against. Edwards does too.

We don't know how Obama is going to react when the GOP slime brigade takes the gloves off. And they will.

Posted by Answer Guy | January 4, 2008 1:41 PM

I desperately want someone who has read the Ambinder link to explain to me how "Hillary Clinton hatred" is "irrational."

Posted by Shinyk | January 4, 2008 1:51 PM

If you haven't had a conversation with a dyed-in-the-wool Hillary hater, you can't possibly have gotten out much. I remember before the 2004 election, talking to people who couldn't for the life of them articulate what it was about Hillary they hated, but that didn't stop them from hating her. And she wasn't even running for president then. She gets the brunt of all the Clinton Derangement Syndrome sufferers, as well as her own special constituency of Hillary haters that just despise her for... well, here I wish I could tell you, but I really can't. There are speculations that it's fueled by gender bias. I think Hillary comes across like the high school honor student, instinctively despised by all the intellectually insecure jocks in class. There are a lot of women that just hate her guts too, so, I don't know. But it's there. I can't think of a "rational" reason to hate her-it's not like she's kicked me in the nuts lately. I don't want to vote for her, but there's nothing personal about that.

Posted by gerontion | January 4, 2008 2:17 PM

"Women women women"- Obama beat her among women.

Also, he still would have won even without support of independents.

It looks to me like Hillary is imploding.

Posted by mad6798j | January 4, 2008 3:54 PM

you can't possibly have gotten out much...I can't think of a "rational" reason to hate her-it's not like she's kicked me in the nuts lately.

If you can't think of any "rational" reason to hate Hillary, you can't possibly have read much. Start with books written by her. "It Takes a Village" is maybe the most sickening literary assault on individual liberty ever authored by a US political figure.

Other reasons:

-provides no compelling reason for her Presidency but suggests, as in Iowa, anyone not voting for her is a misogynist

-"Obama is a Muslim"

-planned every "good" thing in the 90s

-opposed every "bad" thing in the 90s

-hides the evidence that would confirm or disprove either claim

-"inevitability." I'll take free-will over predestination, thank you very much

-hedges answers on all questions and fakes centrism, in order to conceal her straddling of the line between socialist and communist (as evidenced by her aforementioned, horrible, horrible book)

-pathological, unskilled liar (claims to be a close friend of the late Benazir Bhutto despite writing in her autobiography that they met once, with Bhutto's security forcing Clinton to stand "behind a rope," eventually allowing her out to have tea for a few minutes and get a picture)

-promises to throw taxpayer money down the toilet in the form of her "give everybody 5 grand" plan (which would simply drive up tuition by $5 grand over what it would normally rise)

-promises "Universal Pre-K," for which no suitable infrastructure presently exists, necessitating government creation of a "national universal pre-K" system that would not only be too costly for a totally unnecessary new entitlement, but probably illegal as well. Notice that not even Nation-favorite Dennis Kucinich talks about setting up a universal pre-K system. He's honest enough to realize making such a proposal would be illegal and impossible.

-took active role in starting a war with Iraq and active role opposing "the surge." Both have proven to be the wrong judgments at those particular times.

-claims she wanted to invade Rwanda in the 90s

-has allowed for the possibility of doing the same in Sudan, involving the US in "three" unique, simultaneous wars

-proponent of the "unitary executive" theory

And most of these reasons are relatively recent. The only other politician I can think of this many reasons to hate is Bush Jr. In either case, I could go on forever...

Posted by Shinyk | January 4, 2008 3:56 PM

Whether Hillary or Obama is better against McCain is a tougher question than many are letting on. I prefer Obama, only in small part for the reasons stated by Matt and echoed by some of the commenters above. The reason I prefer Obama over Hillary as the opponent of McCain is that,if the facts on the ground continue to improve in Iraq, Hillary is crippled in attacking McCain on foreign policy in a way that Obama is not.

Let me explain: Obama can say, "Sen. McCain has been consistent and principled on Iraq, but dead wrong on the critical question of judgment, which is whether we should have gone in the first place at the cost of 4000 soldiers and a trillion dollars, not to mention the cost of establishing a new spot of instability in the middle east and a new pretext for generating anti-US sentiment in the Muslim world. To be sure, John would have made better tactical decisions on how to execute the war that Bush/Rumsfeld made, but on the big picture, John got it wrong, I got it right, and the American people know this in their bones. Worse, since John does not admit it was a mistake, we can't be sure that, if a similar circumstance arises, he won't opt again for war rather than containment."

Hillary, because of her disastrous war vote, cannot make that argument nearly as effectively as Obama, so Obama is better suited to beat McCain -- especially when you add the icing that he can win some independents that otherwise would go McCain's way.

Posted by RaymondA | January 4, 2008 4:50 PM

Well McCain did best Obama during the ethics reform battle so he has that going for him. I wonder if Obama would help McCain to the podium during the debates.

Posted by bad company | January 4, 2008 9:25 PM