Thought of the Day

It's been pretty widely observed that Barack Obama's relatively brief career in elective office hasn't actually included any tough races against Democrats. Less noted, but also true, is that John McCain's rather long career in electoral politics hasn't included any tough races either. Like Obama, McCain's toughest fights have come in primaries -- specifically his successful 1982 congressional primary, his unsuccessful 2000 primary, and his successful 2008 primary.

In part as a consequence of these realities, and in part as a consequence of the particular dynamics of the 2008 primaries, very few people have heard McCain criticized from the left or heard Obama criticized from the right. That's an unusual situation, and it means that public perceptions of both men could prove quite fragile and prone to shifting once the battle is joined in earnest.

Comments

I think you must mean that Obama hasn't had any tough campaigns against Republicans.

Posted by mark | February 28, 2008 10:38 AM

In the 2000 Democratic primary, Bobby Rush defeated Barack Obama.

Posted by Pritesh | February 28, 2008 10:42 AM

but the narrative on mccain is pretty well set and unlikely to change all that much.

the narrative on obama, on the other hand, is still quite susceptible to being changed, and i for one expect his negatives to end up in clinton/kerry territory.

producing smear jobs is, after all, the core competency of the contemporary right-wing, and they are very, very competent at it.

Posted by howard | February 28, 2008 10:44 AM

It's been pretty widely observed that Barack Obama's relatively brief career in elective office hasn't actually included any tough races against Republicans.

Indeed, but it would seem to me that Keyes' does provide insight into how he would be criticized from the right. Which is to say, ineffectively.

Much less observed is that Obama's held elected office longer than HRC. I know, I know, like several states this primary season, the Illinois Senate doesn't count.

Posted by Jake | February 28, 2008 10:46 AM

Matt, Hillary hasn't faced a tough democratic or republican candidate in running for office. This strikes me as a similar meme to the "Obama doesn't have any D.C. experience." It sounds significant until you find out just how many politicians have been in the same situation.

Posted by Helter | February 28, 2008 10:49 AM

it's the same for all three candidates.

HRC had Rick Lazio and John Spencer respectively in NY as a democrat candidate. Hardly a scrap.

Posted by James | February 28, 2008 10:52 AM

I think one way the narrative can change for John McCain has a lot to do with his age. He can go from a fiesty, straight-talking maverick to a crotchety, grumpy old man. In this 15 second sound-bite world, people might get sick of hearing the same Bush "wave the white flag of surrender" talking point. Obama seems to be hitting back hard and fast McCain will eventually get pissed off and make a slip. The fact that he spends so much time with the press (and has already flubbed with the "I'll lose" comment) bodes well for the chances of an on-record temper flare, which Obama can then use to his advantage.

Posted by maria | February 28, 2008 10:54 AM

This is a pretty good point, although I'll bet that McCain had a more difficult initial race for Senate in 1986 (which was a bad year for Republicans, even though AZ was relatively Republican at the time) than Obama had in 2004 (against the pathetically lame Alan Keyes).

That said, to some extent, McCain has been criticized from the left as a result of his high profile over the years. He's been on MtP, FtN, etc. alot over the years.

Posted by Al | February 28, 2008 10:54 AM

Agree with the other Mark. You must mean Republicans, right?

Obama not only lost a primary to Bobby Rush, in 2004 O'Bama defeated the Chicago machine (Dan Hynes) AND a self-funded millionare (Blair Hull).

Posted by Mark | February 28, 2008 10:54 AM

I'm with Matt, I'm expecting the unexpected, that the weaknesses of each of the major party nominee will come to light.

After the conventions, voters may yet still see the toughest fight in a while, meaning low blows from 527s.

The good news is that after GWB, the world at least will treat the winner as King for the day.

Posted by Kim | February 28, 2008 10:57 AM

This is an interesting point all around - in that not only did Hillary have a couple of cakewalks in NY - her husband never had a tough race except for early in his career as AK AG and AK Gov. GHWB ran a horrible general election race. Bob Dole's campaign was pitiful.

My point in referencing this, which is tangential to the discussion, is that HRC went into this campaign with the story line that because she was surrounded by all of these campaign geniuses who fought the good fight for her and her husband, she'd have a flawless machine. Truth is, that machine had never really been tested until it faced Obama's team, and it's doing miserably.

Posted by jp | February 28, 2008 10:59 AM

Interesting sidenote to the Bobby Rush/Barack Obama primary race in 2000: Rush has endorsed Obama, and he believes that Obama's election to the Senate was "divinely ordered."

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 28, 2008 11:00 AM

What are you talking about? Obama was a third track candidate when he was seeking the Democratic nomination for Senate in 2004. He was running against the Daley machine and had almost zero name recognition among white and black voters.

Posted by KXB | February 28, 2008 11:00 AM

There was actually about a three-month period of time in which Obama faced a very serious Republican candidate in Jack Ryan, before the sex scandal broke and drove Ryan out of the race. Specifically, Obama and Ryan won their respective primaries on March 16, 2004. On June 22, 2004, an LA judge released the court files containing the allegedly scandalous material about Ryan. On June 25, 2004, Ryan dropped out.

Posted by DTM | February 28, 2008 11:02 AM

Cue George Will killing John McCain in the WAPO today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703205.html

Posted by neilrlca | February 28, 2008 11:08 AM

I'm sort of getting tired of Matt's "It's been pretty widely observed" when he REALLY means "I think" Crappy and lazy journalism, Matt. Lose it4.

Besides, as has been pointed out, above, what has been widely observed is simply wrong. I would say that losing an election made it a tough race. And this was against a democrat.

At to Hillary....you forget that she chased Rudy (a tough opponent?) out of the race, although he was forced to use prostate cancer as an excuse. (Few die of treated prostate cancer and the aftermath of surgery takes a couple of weeks for recover, and radiation treatments are not debilitating. Rudy could have and would have continued had he seen a win the the offing. He didn't and took the graceful way out.)

But I really wish that Matt or someone else would do some real reporting (for once) because it is commonly thought --- meaning: I think --- that sending a signal to the Canadian government that you don't really mean the pounding you're going to give NAFTA which will just be for "show" in Ohio, should make anyone seriously considering Obama to seriously reconsider. If that is true, of course, which is why I'd like to see someone do some reporting.

Posted by Barry | February 28, 2008 11:12 AM

I voted for Obama against Bobby Rush in 2000. And you know what? If Obama ran today for Bobby Rush's seat...I bet he'd still lose.

Overturning a popular long term incumbent like Rush in a House seat is near impossible. Beating Clinton in the Presidential primary is a cakewalk by comparison.

Posted by NoahB | February 28, 2008 11:15 AM

but the narrative on mccain is pretty well set and unlikely to change all that much.

howard, I sort of agree and sort of disagree with this. McCain has never had to run as THE representative of THE REPUBLICAN PARTY; he's always been the maverick/indy/straight-talking/etc. But being the presidential nominee of your party will inevitably cause tension with all those labels.

Of course it's going to be difficult to get some of this stuff to stick to him, given how much the media loves him, but that doesn't mean it'll be impossible to do. Unlikely? Perhaps, but I think it largely depends on how well Obama's campaign is able to make that case, and I think they're likely to do a pretty good job of it.

Posted by Hagga | February 28, 2008 11:16 AM

this is EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!

Posted by idiotic | February 28, 2008 11:21 AM

If only we had a Senator as candidate for president who had faced a tough general election opponent, like a popular moderate governor, he would surely take it to the republicans in the fall.

Posted by pittanylion | February 28, 2008 11:25 AM

Re: Obama and Jack Ryan

People who think that this would have been a race are deluding themselves. Illinois is quickly becoming one of the bluest states out there. Long story short, the Chicago suburbs are becoming blacker and more Hispanic, and the Religious Right is starting to really rub nonevangelical suburban whites the wrong way. If memory serves, DuPage County (a longtime bastion of Illinois Republicanism) has gone 50-50 the last several cycles. The last time a Republican won a major statewide office was in 1998, and that was only because the Democrats ran really crappy candidates (the Democratic candidate for governor was a downstate conservative pro-lifer, and Carol Mosely Braun had some serious ethical problems).

Fast forward to 2004, and I believe that Obama won more votes individually in the 2004 Democratic primary (in a field with several credible candidates) than all of the Republicans combined (and in addition to Ryan, there were some big name Republicans running, like Jim Oberweis). He would have beaten Ryan 60-40 or better even without any scandal.

Re: Obama v. Rush

Obama had no shot of winning and he knew it. You don't run as the "white" candidate in a district that is 70%+ minority. This was about showing Illinois powerbrokers that he could get white people to vote for him (and they did) to set up a future run for senate or governor. It was pretty widely known at the time -- in fact, I seem to recall Phil Ponce on Chicago Tonight declaring him a big winner after the primary because he ran so competitively against Rush.

Posted by Joe | February 28, 2008 11:27 AM

"that sending a signal to the Canadian government that you don't really mean the pounding you're going to give NAFTA which will just be for "show" in Ohio, should make anyone seriously considering Obama to seriously reconsider."

It's been reported and denied by Obama's campaign. Since the Obama campaign has zero reason to placate the Canadian government at this point, there's not much left to report on the story unless someone comes up with some kind of documentary proof of the statement being made.

Posted by Helter | February 28, 2008 11:31 AM

jp-

This is a pet peeve and a tiny quibble, but Arkansas' abbreviation is AR. AK is for Alaska. Shockingly, when I lived in Alaska, this widespread misconception would sometimes result in my mail being delivered to small towns in Arkansas. I had a hard time retrieving those messages.

Posted by we are anonymous | February 28, 2008 11:31 AM

haggai, fair enough, it's not impossible the narrative about mccain could change, but it's historically rarer than, say, a mid-season trade in the starting lineup for the eventual nba champion!

Posted by howard | February 28, 2008 11:47 AM

I love how even when Obama loses it was actually all part of his plan. I don't think there is any Obama failing people on this blog cannot make an excuse for.

Jake:

Alan Keyes was a joke opponent. He makes Rick Lazio look like Goliath by comparison. I couldn't think of an opponent I'd want to face more than Keyes were I Obama.

The Illinois state senate counts, just not for much. The last president who had been state legislator was Jimmy Carter, in addition to one term as governor... and the attacks on his experience nearly cost him the election. (a 30 point lead became 2% on election day)

Posted by Tim K | February 28, 2008 12:01 PM

Re Lazio

Actually, Lazio wasn't that bad a candidate. He was very close to Senator Clinton in the polls up to their last debate when he foolishly took the advice of the Clinton haters and acted like a boor, turning off women voters. That was very much a loseable race for Senator Clinton.

Posted by SLC | February 28, 2008 12:18 PM

I wonder if the national Republican party feels any regret for allowing the Illinois party to run a tomato can like Keyes against him in the Senate race.

Posted by mark | February 28, 2008 12:20 PM

If memory serves, DuPage County (a longtime bastion of Illinois Republicanism) has gone 50-50 the last several cycles.

Yeah --- unfortunately, I'm still represented in Congress by Peter fucking Roskam.

Posted by goethean | February 28, 2008 12:21 PM

To anonymous above - on AR and AK - of course you are right and of course I am sloppy. Thanks for calling me out.

Posted by jp | February 28, 2008 12:32 PM

If you criticize Obama from the right, you appeal to those that are to the right of him. If you criticize McCain from the left, you appeal to those that are to the left of him. The problem is that, since on the big issues (the war, the economy, the Bush legacy) the independents tend to agree more with Obama than with McCain, it will be necessary for the right to demonize and distort if they want to win.

Posted by Joe Buck | February 28, 2008 12:40 PM

This was about showing Illinois powerbrokers that he could get white people to vote for him (and they did) to set up a future run for senate or governor.

That and Daley wanted to rap Rush across the knuckles for having a go at him in '99.

Posted by HatBox | February 28, 2008 12:41 PM

Dick Morris says, “We are watching a grim re-enactment of all of the character traits that led Hillary to decompose in the healthcare debate of her husband’s first term. The blind reliance on a guru-delivered strategy, the religious insistence on following the same rhetorical line even when it obviously isn’t working, the inflexibility in adapting to one’s opposition, and the inability to formulate new strategies or to improvise tactics when her pre-conceptions are found to be so obviously faulty — this is Hillary.” My own opinion is that Hillary Clinton is an ideologue, a lazy person’s politician. It’s far easier to rely on perception than actual achievement. Whichever candidate does the hard work in this race, will have the substance to prevail against unexpected consequences, constant media scrutiny and, win the vote: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | February 28, 2008 12:50 PM

"Actually, Lazio wasn't that bad a candidate."

He wasn't a bad guy, but the dude got into the race late, was starved of funding compared to her, and was unknown upstate after she had spent months cultivating voters in the region. A republican has to dominated upstate to win in NY. She didn't end up polling as well as Gore come election day, but I don't remember there being much doubt about the outcome even before the debate.

And he didn't act like a "boor" in crossing the stage, at least not by Hillary "Let me interrupt you and cackle like a loon while you're talking, Barak" Clinton standards.

Posted by Helter | February 28, 2008 1:15 PM

Noah (11:15 am),

Bobby Rush came to Congress by defeating an incumbent in the Democratic primary. Moreover, this is the same Congressional district in which Harold Washington first won by defeating an incumbent in the Democratic primary.

Posted by Vadranor | February 28, 2008 1:22 PM

"The last time a Republican won a major statewide office was in 1998, and that was only because the Democrats ran really crappy candidates (the Democratic candidate for governor was a downstate conservative pro-lifer, and Carol Mosely Braun had some serious ethical problems)."

Joe,

Actually, the 1998 Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Illinois, Congressman Glenn Poshard, was pretty liberal on economic and fiscal issues. (One of his biggest planks was to use the state income tax as the primary source of education funding, instead of local property taxes, in order to remove inequalities in school funding. This position is definitely favored more by liberals than by conservatives in Illinois.). Moreover, Poshard was also running against George Ryan, who at the time was a popular Secretary of State, while relying on small donors instead of PACs for campaign funding. Poshard was running an uphill battle against a popular & politically moderate quasi-incumbent, but he was hobbled by self-inflicted money issues and by politcal missteps toward key Democratic constituencies (such as gays).

Poshard dig begin to make up ground against Ryan after the debates, and after news about the licenses-for-bribes scandal involving underlings in Ryan's Secretary of State office became a recurring feature in the news. Had Poshard not hobbled his campaign by relying on small donors, Poshard could have made up enough ground to eke out a narrow win over Ryan.

Unfortunately for Poshard, the licenses-for-bribes scandal was still in its early stages, and the full detailing of how much corruption Ryan had allowed in the Secretary of State's office didn't come out until after Ryan became Governor of Illinois. Once, Illinois voters became aware of this, Ryan's future in Illinois politics was over. Ryan not only did not seek re-election, but the stain that Ryan had put on the Illinois GOP as a whole led to a Democratic sweep of statewide offices in 2002, with the exception of the state treasurer's office. In addition, after leaving office, Ryan was indicted and then convicted on corruption charges.

BTW, Poshard retired from Congress and is now the President of Southern Illinois University, while Ryan is behind bars.

Posted by eltoro | February 28, 2008 1:57 PM

I actually think the Obama/Keyes debates are a pretty good indication of where this is going. As Keyes said more and more insane things, Obama just stayed cool. No anger, no faux outrage, just his understated law professor-like "I see several flaws in your argument" tpye thing. I bet this will play fantastically against McCain. As soon as McCain lets his temper get the better of him in a debate, it's over. McCain looks like the crazy old man while Obama appears entirely as too much of a gentleman to point it out.

I will also add that the patented Obama praise-and-stab works wonders. E.g., "Senator McCain is a [war hero/campaign finance pioneer/true patriot], but recently [the wheels came off the straight talk express/the culture of Washington got the better of him/he put loyalty to George W. Bush above the good of the nation] because he [wants to keep our troops in Iraq until the year 12,008/is trying to reap the benefits of public fianncing without playing but the rules/really wants to inavde Iran for some reason].

And then McCain gets angry. Rinse, repeat.

Posted by Shochu John | February 28, 2008 2:27 PM

In 1982, McCain loaned $167,000 to his campaign to win the primary, which raises the same ethical issues regarding the Clinton and Romney campaign loans. I wrote a little about it here:

http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2008/02/john-mccain-also-loaned-money-to-his.html

If Obama wins the nomination, Democratic researchers should check out who donated to McCain's post-primary 1982 campaign, a cakewalk that just meant putting money in McCain's pocket. If Clinton wins, the D's can't touch the issue.

Posted by Brian Schmidt | February 28, 2008 3:12 PM

Obama vs Hull would have been a tough race for him that is why Axelrod(?)continuously pushed the messy Hull divorce story. Obama was down ten points and waited until the divorce story broke before his first ad went up.

Obama is a good campaigner because he has run for a higher office every three years. What probably helped him the most versus Clinton was his two primary campaigns.

Posted by jujutsu | February 28, 2008 3:12 PM

A direct line can be traced from Glenn Poshard's 1998 gubernatorial run to Obama's 2004 Senate victory.

Glenn Poshard's 1998 win in the Illinois Democratic primary for Governor pointed out the importance of the Democratic vote outside of Cook County (Chicago and its immediate suburbs). In Illinois, nearly 2/3 of the statewide Democratic vote comes from Cook County alone. That means the remaining 1/3 comes from the collar counties (the counties around Cook that are also part of the Chicago metropolitan area)and from "downstate" (i.e. the rest of Illinois outside of the Chicago metropolitan area, which includes parts of Illinois that are actually upstate.) Poshard was a very popular Congressman from downstate Illinois, and managed to beat his 3 rivals in the Democratic primary by dominating the downstate vote, while he and his rivals more or less split the Cook County and collar county vote evenly.

This was noted by a Chicago Congressman named Rod Blagojevich, who eked out a narrow win in the 2002 Democratic primary for Governor over Paul Vallas (the celebrated former CEO of the Chicago Public Schools) and former State Comptroller Roland Burris, by dominating the downstate vote, while narrowly losing to Vallas and Burris in the Chicago metropolitan area. Blago then won election to the Governor's office in the 2002 Democratic rout over the GOP in statewide offices.

This was also noted by a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park named Barack Obama, who decided to run for US Senate in the 2004 Democratic primary. Obama's opponents were also from Cook County, and were competitive with him in the Chicago metro region. Moreover, Obama's opponent Dan Hynes (the state comptroler backed by the Chicago Democratic machine) had the name recognition downstate to win there by default. The Obama campaign, however, made sure that it didn't concede downstate.

Obama not only campaigned vigorously in downstate Illinois, but he also secured a crucial endorsement from Jeannie Simon, the daughter of the late Paul Simon. Simon was a hugely popular Democratic politician from downstate who had served in the US Senate from 1985-1997 (Dick Durbin now holds this seat).

In a superb commercial crafted by David Axelrod, Jeannie Simon drew parallels between her late father and Obama; in particular, she drew favorable parallels between Paul Simon and Obama on the basis of integrity and honesty. This commercial enable Obama to solidify his support througout Illinois, particularly in downstate. As a result, Obama won 50% of the Democratic primary vote in 2004.

Posted by eltoro | February 28, 2008 3:21 PM

"Obama vs Hull would have been a tough race for him that is why Axelrod(?)continuously pushed the messy Hull divorce story. Obama was down ten points and waited until the divorce story broke before his first ad went up."

Obama vs Dan Hynes was also a tough race. Dan Hynes was (and still is) a popular State Comptroller, and he was backed by the Chicago Democratic Machine. Obama vs popular Cook Country Treasurer Maria Pappas was also a tough race. Therefore, it is a fallacy to argue that Obama won simply because of the Blair Hull implosion. Hull's support could have easily gone to Dan Hynes or Maria Pappas.

What was more important than the Hull implosion was the endorsement of Jeannie Simon in Axelrod's superbly crafted campaign commercial for Obama. That is what established Obama as a true contender in the mind of most Illinois voters who were still undecided a month before the primary.

Posted by eltoro | February 28, 2008 3:31 PM

"He wasn't a bad guy, but the dude got into the race late, was starved of funding compared to her, and was unknown upstate after she had spent months cultivating voters in the region. A republican has to dominated upstate to win in NY"

Yeah, Rick Lazio wasn't even particularly well known on Long Island, where he was from.

Posted by mad6798j | February 28, 2008 3:44 PM

and yet Lazio won 43% of the vote. Some one must have voted for him. A week after he announced, Lazio only trailed Clinton by 2 points. In June, they were tied. In October it was back to a 2% lead for Clinton. (Lazio actually carried upstate by 3 points though that wasn't close to being enough to overcome her huge margins in NYC)

Lazio was no Rudy but there was a chance she could have lost to him whereas no one was going to lose to Keyes.

Posted by numbe3s | February 28, 2008 4:06 PM

Re helter & mad6798

The memory of these two gentlemen relative to the 2000 Senate race between Clinton and Lazio is somewhat deficient.

1. Polling done before the last debate showed them in a virtual tie. Ms. Clinton may not have considered his actions boorish but post election polls showed that many women voters did.

2. Ms. Clinton indeed, almost carried Upstate New York, losing by only 1 percentage point; a Rethuglican has to carry upstate by a lot more then that to have a chance to win. However, this was partially offset by Ms. Clinton carrying New York City by a much smaller margin then Democrats usually do. This was, in great part, due to dissatisfaction among Jewish voters with her embrace of Suha Arafat after the latter had accused the Government of Israel of poisoning the Palestinian water supply.

3. There was considerable resentment about Ms. Clinton being a carpetbagger who had never lived in New York until she moved there to run for the Senate. However, this too was partly offset by the fact that New Yorkers don't mind carpetbaggers as much as the voters in other states, having elected Daniel Moynihan and James Buckley to the Senate, neither of whom was a resident of the state before their election (although to be fair, Moynihan was born in Buffalo).

Posted by SLC | February 28, 2008 4:22 PM

Just to clarify, I agree Obama likely would have soundly beat Ryan. Indeed, I believe Obama was way up in the polls on Ryan before the scandal broke. But if you are looking for what a sane Republican opponent says when running against Obama, there are three months of material available.

By the way, the Illinois GOP tried to get someone from Illinois to run against Obama, but no one would do it. Heck, they even tried to get Ditka. Basically, Keyes was the only person willing to volunteer to be a sacrificial lamb.

Posted by DTM | February 28, 2008 5:47 PM