Obama must face the real experience gap as Clinton makes case for nomination
Despite her not-so-surprising victories in Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas, Senator Hillary Clinton is still facing a tremendous uphill climb to win the Democrat nomination. Upcoming primaries in Mississippi and Wyoming will further add to Senator Obama’s delegate lead, making Clinton’s quest for the nomination even more difficult.
ABC News reported on Wednesday, March 5 that “Clinton would need to win 94% of all the remaining pledged delegates to hit the magic number of 2,024.” This would likely throw the nomination to the will of the convention, relying upon the votes of un-pledged super delegates to hand her the top spot on the ticket.
Clinton’s massive victory in Ohio—a usual bellwether of the national political climate—has shown us that her repetitive claim of being ready to take command of the presidency on day one has obviously resonated with a relatively moderate state that represents a bona fide microcosm of the nation as a whole.
Democrat primary voters are more now than ever forced to choose between what is being broken down as Obama’s nostrums of change and Clinton’s claims of experienced dependability. Bearing in mind that John McCain has captured the Republican nomination, would it not be a wise path for the Democratic National Convention to nominate the candidate who can evenly match him on the experience, steadiness, and dependability card—real or imagined—which would also enable their party to put someone with security knowledge up against the Republican nominee who speaks only of this subject?
There are a number of indicators that have led this pundit to believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton may prove to be a better option for the Democrat Party to defeat John McCain in November. Bear in mind that none of these points should be construed to suggest that this writer supports any of the three conceivable presidential candidates.
First, the voting public is fickle. Plagued by chronic indecisiveness, the voters seem to change positions on candidates and issues faster than John Kerry changes his mind on the Iraq War. The voters overwhelmingly want change, but they don’t really want too much of it. While “change” is the one word synonymous with the name Obama, it is unknown right now if the level of change being associated with him is more than the cautious public really desires. Exit polling data from every primary and caucus state presently supports this theory since Obama is more associated with “change” than Hillary, thus, she is seen as supporting change, but simply not as much of it.
Second, candidates who share Obama’s liberalism have not been elected in years in which they have secured the nomination: Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, and Kerry in 2004. One fact is exceptionally clear: the nation is much more conservative than it is liberal. According to a 2007 AP-Ipsos poll, 41 percent of Americans identify as conservative and 21 percent as liberal. Moreover, 14 percent of conservatives are “strong” conservatives while just six percent of liberals are “strong” liberals. Obama’s ability to pull along a majority of the 34 percent of the moderates and a large enough slice of the 41 percent of the conservatives is debatable.
Third, McCain, as miserable of a candidate as he is, will have the upper hand in the general election. This is partly because he will simply have spent a greater amount of time raising general election money, coalition building, and campaigning against both Clinton and Obama by the time the Democrat nominee is known. Will Obama, the more liberal of the Democratic candidates, have the time necessary to moderate in order to catch McCain’s lead? It would be reasonable to suggest that Clinton may have time to moderate since it is quite challenging to determine her actual positions and feelings on most issues aside from abortion on demand, gun control, higher taxes, and support for unelected international bodies.
Fourth, if Ohio is the reliable thermometer of voter temperature that it seems, one could deduce that Buckeye State voters asked themselves the usual (and somewhat valid) question: if the worst possible scenario is presented to us, who do we want making the important decisions (raised in this race as the now-infamous “if the President gets a 3:00am call that something horrible has happened, who do you want to respond” ad run by both Obama and Clinton). Right now, McCain will win this argument every single time; however, Ohio showed that Hillary seems to be the Democrat who may come close. As he argues his case on this, Obama only makes his situation worse because he doesn’t have the so-called experience to legitimize his own argument.
Last and most importantly, Clinton and McCain have made much rhetorical hay out of Obama’s alleged lack of experience to lead. It is my sense that the problem is not Obama’s lack of policy or public service experience, but rather his lack of experience in running hard-nosed general election campaigns—dirty, nasty campaigns like the one coming this October. Don’t forget that Obama’s general election opponent in 2004 was the imported Alan Keyes and that his political base is the Democrat-machine run Windy City, a town that is known almost as much for lack of Republican competitiveness as it is for Michael Jordan, deep dish pizza, and the Cubs.
I rarely claim that Hillary Clinton is right about much of anything, but I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on this: the Democrat race is far from over, leaving un-pledged delegates and super delegates with much to consider.
nathanrshrader@yahoo.com
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Republican strategists hope they can run against Clinton in November. It's their only chance.
What has Hillary done to make her "experienced" enough to answer that 3am phone call? I'm still waiting…
If HRC is at the top of the Democratic ticket, kiss the Presidency good-bye and say hello to President McCain. This Dem–and many more like me–will not vote for Clinton. Those who support Clinton at this time are die hard rank and file Democrats who might say they won't vote Obama, but we all know as goose-steppers…Yes. They. Will. If this Party ignores the obvious call for change–the Obama folks will go elsewhere. So, DNC–you best think long and hard about HRC…she would best be served on the Supreme Court but I even have my doubts about her experience for that nomination. And let me remind you–Nader and Ron Paul are in this race. What you don't really understand, Nathan…this race isn't about experience. This race is about leadership…and great leaders always surround themselves with the experienced. Not their husband.
I'm not fickle–that was yesterday
I have to agree with you, no matter that I prefer Clinton to Obama.
"Hillary claiming to have been part of in the White House is like Yoko claiming to have been a Beatle."
Sunny, I know this race has nothing to do with experience… at this moment. It will in the fall when one of these two experience-lacking candidates wins the nomination! I spent many years in the Democrat Party and can assure you that the typical Democrat constituencies (which I will describe below… AKA "the usual suspects") will pull the Democrat lever without having so much as a second thought. Believe me, I am not advocating that Hillary wins. I'm just saying that I think there is a very legitimate case for her to make about why she can beat John McCain and Obama cannot. I laid these reasons out above. The Democrat Party is filled to the brim with hacks who will vote the party line without hesitation if they sense that a candidate who is sympathetic to them can win.. This includes pro-abortion radicals, multiculturalists, extreme environmentalists, nanny-staters, labor union leaders, interventionists, one-worlders, gun-banners, open borders advocates, tax hikers, etc. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in line with this cadre, not with reality. Anybody belonging to any of the Democrat Party interest groups as mentioned above will vote for Hillary or Obama despite what they may say right now. The above mentioned interests that control the Democrat Party will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate. Meanwhile, the sensible, reasonable, informed voters (ie… independents and Republicans) will be left to decide the outcome of the November election and whether they want to vote for the candidate who is insane (McCain), to the left of Stalin (Obama), or power hungry (Hillary). As of right now, McCain win this thing regardless of who the Democrats nominate. Nathan
Actually, I think that Hillary was a part of the White House, not necessarily a positive part of it, but a part no matter how you slice it.
I appreciate your comments, Nathan and in past elections, your argument makes perfect sense…but in this election–where many feel we are standing at the crossroads of turning back or forever falling into the brink– is more about heart than head. We all witnessed what happened with Gore in 2000 with the indies that were tired of Democratic politics as usual. This will happen again if Clinton is the nominee–only this time, there will be no need for a recount–she will lose large. I've logged a few years in the Dem Party myself and I know just who is supporting Clinton and just who is supporting Obama…and my advice? Pay attention, Howard.
Good points. However, Gore "won" that election and he did so running further left than he should have. There would have been no dispute in Florida if he would have run as the moderate he had actually governed as for years. I was among his supporters in 2000 who was and remains upset and confused about his turn left in the campaign. I think she will win the nomination and come pretty darn close to beating McCain.
"Think" with your heart this time. As far as Gore–although he won the popular vote–my question has always been–why didn't he win by more than the figure on the books? Watching the Obama-Clinton match-up reminds me 2000….ask yourself–why isn't Hillary blowing Obama out of the water? Why–when she does win–isn't she winning by more? Much much more. What are Democratic voices telling us? Check out my post today on Smashed Frog and really listen to the comments posted over at Huffington, by a person who views Hillary as the perfect candidate–for all the wrong reasons. http://smashedfrog.blogspot.com/2008/03/american-...
"Think" with your heart this time. As far as Gore–although he won the popular vote–my question has always been–why didn't he win by more than the figure on the books? Watching the Obama-Clinton match-up reminds me 2000….ask yourself–why isn't Hillary blowing Obama out of the water? Why–when she does win–isn't she winning by more? Much much more. What are Democratic voices telling us? Check out my post today on Smashed Frog and really listen to the comments posted over at Huffington, by a person who views Hillary as the perfect candidate–for all the wrong reasons. http://smashedfrog.blogspot.com/2008/03/american-...
"Think" with your heart this time. As far as Gore–although he won the popular vote–my question has always been–why didn't he win by more than the figure on the books? Watching the Obama-Clinton match-up reminds me 2000….ask yourself–why isn't Hillary blowing Obama out of the water? Why–when she does win–isn't she winning by more? Much much more. What are Democratic voices telling us? Check out my post today on Smashed Frog and really listen to the comments posted over at Huffington, by a person who views Hillary as the perfect candidate–for all the wrong reasons. http://smashedfrog.blogspot.com/2008/03/american-...
Gore lost because of Ralph Nader