No one knows how strong Obama will be against McCain, because he hasn't been tested under their fire

[bigtree]

in a presidential campaign. Does ANYONE believe he won't be hit, and, hit hard?

We all know how the Clinton's fared against similar attacks . . .

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stillrockin]

2. buh buy

[Guava Jelly]

3. He is a smart man

He will do fine..

[robbedvoter]

12. So were Gore and Kerry

[BadgerLaw2010]

45. Since when is Kerry actually smart?

[Guava Jelly]

49. Yes but independants didn't vote Kerry because they didn't like Kerry

They like Obama

[styersc]

4. You are right, Obama is untested.

He has practically no experience and is horribly underqualified for the position.

I love his enthusiasm and vision, but, like you, his lack of maturity and experience troubles me.

[cali]

7. Let's see: 7 years as an Illinois State Senator and 3 years

as a U.S. Senator. That's 10 years of elected office. Then there's 10 years teaching Constitutional law and 4 years practicing civil rights law and 3 years as a community organizer. That is NOT no experience. It's more than Abraham Lincoln had and it's more than DDE had.

And calling him immature is ludicrous.

More garbage. More ignorance

[Guava Jelly]

10. ..

:applause:

[bigtree]

11. cali,

You can't be suggesting that his career, so far, is any insulation from the coming attacks? Did Kerry's lifetime career insulate him??

You are so wrong on this. Admit it. There is nothing in his career which has been as withering on his character as the upcoming general election has the almost certain potential to inflict on the good senator.

[cali]

18. I am clearly responding to the poster claiming that Obama has NO

experience and is immature. That's nonsense and I have little tolerance for it, just as I have little tolerance for people who claim that Hillary's 8 years in the White House as first lady isn't relevant experience.

Of course the upcoming election, should he be the nominee will be a battle, but he's done quite well against a very powerful candidate and political machine, and I think he'll do fine against McCain. Better than Hillary would.

[bigtree]

24. He'll do fine, with our support

But, we're in for a new smear campaign, likely, just as withering, or worse, than those we've seen in the past. And, there's a blank slate, right now, for the majority of Americans who don't have a settled representation of his history, his character, or his record. Hillary is just ahead by seniority on that score. She's been around longer, and has already demonstrated her ability to withstand the attacks as she governs effectively. We'll just have to wait and see about Obama. His ability to withstand the attacks is mostly unknown.

Sorry for bickering in the post above. I'd like to take my rude comments down, if I may.

[cali]

32. I keep saying, both of them can win

I'm clearly in a minority but I don't see McCain as formidable. I think he won't wear well as a candidate. He's a lousy debater. He has a nasty temper that he has trouble controlling. He has an ugly political history (Keating 5). He's got a shitload of catch up to play with fundraising. And he's old in a youth oriented culture. Yeah, I know about Reagan, but McCain is no sunny Ronald R.

And no worries about your comments.

[styersc]

17. Pretty defensive.

In your very short reiteration of Obama's very brief resume', you fail to include his failed bid for Congressional seat that preceded his run for Senate. A failed campaign is actually a tremendous source of experience. The great campaign that Obama and his team has run probably benefitted from that experience as much as they had benefitted from his successful Senate run as he was practically unopposed for the Senate.

In comparison to Lincoln, I agree that Obama would have been a formidable character in the middle to late nineteenth century when literacy was rare, whale oil was a hotly traded commidity and the cotton gin was cutting edge technology. Obama gives a great speech but his debating skills, I don't think, could meet Douglas-Lincoln standards. Probably why he is refusing Hillary's request for many more debates.

It may encourage you to know that Newt Gingrich made the same comparison of Obama to Lincoln. Republicans are very eager to prop up Obama against Hillary- they'd love to run against him.

In regards to Dwight David Eisenhower, Obama certainly has more political experience then did Ike. I don't know if teaching law or community activism quite equals leading the Allied Forces against Nazi Germany in World War II and then overseeing the reconstruction of a continent while suppressing the agressive aims of the Soviet Union, but seemingly enough voters in the US found those expereieces as warranting an opportunity to lead the country.

[cali]

28. no not defensive, just tired of spin.

His resumee is not that brief. What you're attempting to do is no different than those who attempt to discredit Clinton's experience. It's a silly game on both sides. He's not as good a debater as she is, but he's managed fine and, in fact, had his best debate one one one with Clinton. He's agreed to two more debates. She asked for four. She needs them more than he does. Tactically, he should NOT give her what she needs.

Your most ridiculous claim is that the repugs would love to run against him. There is no evidence of that being so. There is, however, a lot of evidence that they see running against Clinton as the best way to preserve a repug White House. They are aware of her sky high negatives and realize that she gets out the repug vote in a way their own candidate can't. She's a one woman GOTV superstar- for repugs. And she attracts no independent vote. Let me suggest you take a recreational spin through the right side of the blogosphere, where you'll find the longing to run against Hillary, nearly universal.

[styersc]

34. I hope that you don't think that I'm ANTI-OBAMA. I support

Hillary because I believe that she has better policies and that her life history equips her better to hold the office. I support HIllary in the primary but if the call goes to Obama I will work day and night to get him elected and he will not have a more dedicated volunteer then me.

I do not think that this primary should be name calling or attacking. Senator Obama inspires the passion and enthusiasm that I have hoped to see for decades and believe that he is important and a force of nature. Obama, however, is a young man with a scarce set of experiences. As a man about Obama's age I can promise you that he realizes how much more wise he is today then he was ten years ago. He should also be cognizant of how much more skill and savvy he will acquire in the next ten years. I am saying that if you think Obama would make a good president at 48, he would be a GREAT president at 56!!!

[cali]

43. I respect your support for Clinton but I disagree with

the claim that he's too young. He's 47 years old. That is not a young man. He's older than Bill Clinton was. And he has more foreign policy experience than he had. Granted he has less domestic policy experience but overall, he certainly has enough experience, and experience is not the sole criteria for me. Judgment is important too. Senator Clinton demonstrated a grievous lack of judgment when she voted for thw AUMF- the most important vote she'll ever cast. I didn't say that about that vote. My Senator, Pat Leahy did in his speech prior to the vote. He warned his colleagues that sending a blank check to the president- any president- was a road to disaster. I knew that. I believe Clinton did too. I've read the comments that Linc Chafee makes in his new book about dem Senators who voted for the war, and it jibes with what I've long believed.

But my reasons for not supporting Clinton go well beyond that vote. I don't want to see a return to the battles of the 90's; we lost too many important ones. I think we'd recycle old dynamics and end up in a mess. I don't see that Clinton is a good leader- able to delegate and inspire. Perhaps she's learned from her failures on healtcare, but I wonder.

I'll certainly vote for if she's the nominee but I think it's time to move beyond the Clintons and those they surround themselves with.

[bigtree]

46. On your last point . . .

those folks the Clintons surround themselves with will be in the limited pool of draftees in ANY new Democratic administration. I still haven't heard much from Obama about who he'll consider hiring, but, I don't think he can well afford to dismiss the talent which comes from all quarters of the Democratic party. There are tons of positions to fill. Remember Bill Clinton's delay in filling his?

[cali]

47. He'll have different political operatives around him

that at least is certain. I imagine he will have a significant number of Clintonians ust as he has in his campaign, but I would also expect someone like Samantha Power to get a high level position. There are others who have been in gov't who are not closely connected to Clinton. And of course, there are many who were and who are talent and committed people. But I'd hope that his political team would be a whole new game. No McCauliff or Carville or Ickes.

[BadgerLaw2010]

41. State Senate counts for jack. Especially when you don't vote.

[bigtree]

13. I see your point

misread it.

[styersc]

29. If Obama is the candidate the GOP will never attack him.

They will only point out his lack of leadership experience, absence of military or foreign policy experience, lack of experience in economic matters and point out the very real challenges that the country is now facing and ask the voters if they want to go with a very young candidate with an eight line resume' or go with a war hero with decades of experience.

Obama will certainly carry every democrat and all of those who he inspired to get involved but with this choice, McCain will carry grumbling Rrepublicans and independents who are actually encouraged by the hatred his is getting from Limbaugh and the like.

With Hillary the argument won't be about vague promises of change or a fluffy, feel good speech. The debate will be about nuts and bolts policy differences and I believe that HIllary's policies are better then McCains so she will carry the day.

[cali]

5. If he wins the nomination he'll have beat a formidable candidate

and an impressive political machine. Furthermore, Hillary has NOT run for president before, and no Bill's campaigns do not count. And neither of her Senate races were competitive anymore than Obama's was.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. I'll concede that point. I favor O. anyway. nt

[pampango]

8. Lots of unknowns. That's one. How much Hillary would unite a fractured Rep party

is another. Maybe her galvanizing them would in turn galvanize us to unite.

Who knows for sure. Life is full of unknowns. You go with what you know, believe, hope and make the best guess you can.

[bigtree]

14. It seems lost on you that her 'negatives' are a result of a constant, years long attack

by the right-wing machines. You *can't pretend that the right-wing wasn't engaged in a multi million dollar campaign throughout Bill Clinton's presidency to discredit both of them.

[cali]

31. It doesn't matter WHY they're so high

It simply matters that they are that high. And I think they'll get higher.

[bigtree]

38. That just doesn't bear out

Why didn't they already 'go higher'?

At some point, the attacks are seen as just that, attacks. there's an insulation to these politicians which comes over time. It has to do with the fact that qualities of the individual which contradict the summary attacks become more evident to more folks looking on, over time. Hillary reached that point years ago.

[TwilightGardener]

9. If he hasn't fucked it up yet, and since he's fought like a sonovabitch for the nom, why

do you assume he'll fuck it up later?

[bigtree]

16. I think he has the burden of what he claimed just yesterday: He's less known

to the majority of Americans than Hillary. It's always the case that there is more of an opportunity to define the newcomer in ways that the better known candidate has immunities from in past defenses. This isn't rocket science.

[TwilightGardener]

25. He's been pretty good at defining himself thus far, I'd say. The man is a genius

at marketing and selling himself, from his books to his campaign slogans to his pet legislation as the "ethics" guy. That a virtual unknown now has a 40/60 or better shot at the Dem nomination against a celebrity, a world-wide known quantity with a former President-husband who is still beloved in the party, is a stunning achievement. You can dismiss it--but the talent is there. John McCain, who is about as well-known as Hillary, drew a crowd of 350 in red-state Kansas yesterday. Obama drew almost 10,000 in red-state Nebraska the day before. Amazing.

[bigtree]

26. on the job training

vs. proven experience

[TwilightGardener]

30. Sorry, I don't see HIllary as having much "proven experience"--just being in

the Senate four years longer doesn't give her THAT much of an edge, especially when McCain has 20 years on her. And the First Lady role? No, sorry. Not experience. Unless I now have experience as a military officer because my husband's done it for 16 years. Being around a long time, being KNOWN and famous a long time, is NOT relevant experience.

[bigtree]

35. not experience in general. to the point of the query, experience in successfully deflecting attacks

while governing effectively.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Hillary Clinton is also untested "in a presidential campaign"

And knowing how Bill Clinton fared in 1992 and 1996 is no indicator of how Hillary Clinton will fare in 2008.

Your post doesn't make sense according to its own terms.

[bigtree]

19. Yet, she is better known, and did go through the scrutiny of a presidential campaign

as well as a decade long campaign against her, specifically, by the right-wing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. You said "in a presidential campaign"

I'm just following your terminology. As far as I know, Hillary has not been the nominee in a presidential campaign yet.

[Tweed]

20. Running against an inevitable nominee is chump change?

:shrug:

Why do you put Hillary down like this?

[bigtree]

27. she hasn't hit below the belt like the right-wing does

don't even pretend there's no difference

[Straight Shooter]

21. McCain will trounce Obama on security. Experience will matter.

I've seen how McCain comes across to people. I don't like him, and it's hard not to be impressed with his measured, thoughtful way of addressing the issues. If one didn't have knowledge of the issues, it would be easy to be fooled.

Hillary has the trump card. With Iran being in the news, and it will continue to be in the news, she is the only one of the three that voted for Kyl/Lieberman. She can actually claim she's tough on terror, because she's the only one who voted on it. She had the political courage to commit on the record.

Barack, of course, did not vote. McCain, surprisingly, did not vote.

We would be foolish to underestimate how much Iran is going to dominate the news. I see the same creeping coverage of it as we saw in Iraq. But Hillary, at least, will go for diplomatic measures. I think she can get Ahmadinejad to calm down, because she'll make a wise decision for Secretary of State. Joe Biden or Richardson would be good choices.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

37. Hmm

As far as experience and nat'l security go, he's got her on both counts. His decades in Congress will make a mockery of her resume and they will portray her as a "flipflopper" on the war in Iraq. On the other hand, the fact that she wants to pull the troops out of the unpopular war is a plus for her. As is the fact that she is a much better speaker and debater than he is.

[Straight Shooter]

51. Too many years in Congress can make a Senator appear entrenched and out of touch.

I see positives and negatives for both on the experience issue.

I do see Hillary trouncing McCain on the issue of foresight in matters of security. She did vote for Kyl/Lieberman whereas he did not even vote at all. She worked on removing the inflammatory language before voting yea. This gives her ammunition to point out that McCain didn't even care enough about the Iran "threat" to show up and vote. Bad move on his part, smart move on her part.

Iran and the economy will be the issue. Did you see him respond to the education question in one of his rallies lately? He looked like a deer in the headlights. Someone else had to prompt him. Hillary will trounce him on the issue of the economy. So would Barack.

[goldcanyonaz]

44. Obama will get schooled on national television by McCain.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

52. Have you seen McCain in a debate? He couldn't beat Mittens.

Obama's debate performances are improving all the time. All he has to do is make McCain angry and he'll put his foot in his mouth.

[gulliver]

22. Obama is getting the kid glove treatment from the GOP.

It ain't fear. By the time the GOP is done with Obama, he will be a coke-snorting, Hugo Chavez liberal whose career was bought for him by Chicago insiders. Obama has only withstood the withering fire of Alan Keyes. The belief that he has any kind of proven armor against Republican attacks is purely naive, wishful thinking.

[QC]

23. Given how sensitive Obama is, the way he goes to pieces

at the mildest hits, one can't help but wonder how he will do when the full fury of the GOP is turned on him.

If he thinks Bill & Hillary are oh so mean, what does he think Rove will be like?

[intheozone]

33. He wasn't even tested in his senatorial campaign, he ran against Alan Keyes! nt

[Straight Shooter]

36. That race was a give-away, considering the corruption of the Repub pols. n/t

[BadgerLaw2010]

42. Because the prior Republican tried to force his wife to engage in public group sex.

Go IL GOP!

[kid a]

39. this is Clinton / MSM crappola

[bigtree]

40. It's my god damned opinion. I'm offering it here, not MSM, Clinton, or anyone else

deal with that.

[killbotfactory]

50. And yet he's about to beat the Clinton's...

hmm...

[VotesForWomen]

53. correct; he hasn't even been touched yet, but he will be if he's the nominee. nt