* virginia4kerry's diary :: ::
*

Also, Obama and Edwards have largely been aggressive and sought to differentiate themselves from Hillary by attacking her ties to the same old system and the same old Washington elites, while Republicans have hammered her in their debates as well. Although there have been substantial disputes on foreign policy, and minor disputes amongst the candidates on health care, we haven't seen the kind of attack ads the Republicans have used against each other, and have used even against Hillary Clinton.  

So my question is this, on the national level, when respective candidates will be hit with direct attack ads, do you still think they will maintain their comparable edge over Republican opponents?

I mean Hillary Clinton votes with the Democratic party 91% of the time, while Barack Obama votes with the Democratic party 95% of the time, or something to that sort. When you see ads tying Obama or Edwards to Pelosi, Clinton, and Ted Kennedy, how will they still maintain that sort of Republican or Independent support?

On some issues like Social Security, Obama is to the left of Clinton and his position is controversial even amongst progressive bloggers. Obama has argued that we need to eliminate the cap on contributions. Edwards has advocated for a bubble where the contribution starts again past 200k, but Obama is furthest to the left on that issue. No doubt, conservatives will label his position as a massive tax increase, and it might not even play well in states like Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Virginia, etc. where people who strive to be in the middle class feel they need to make  between 100k and 200k. Democrats were pressed to act on the AMT precisely for this reason because this is where their base resides.

Obama's record as a state legislator also offers up red meat for conservatives on votes relating to medical assistance for fetuses, prisoners frivolous court costs, gun bans, sex shops near schools and religious places, etc.

Obama is also furthest to the left of the candidates on immigration in advocating drivers licenses for illegal aliens absent comprehensive immigration reform (which 20% of the country agrees with) and then there is the Obama-grassley-baucus amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration reform act which was never debated, but the Bush administraton and Michael Chertoff vehemently opposed because they felt it lessened the burden on employers in verifying status. Even Claire Mckaskill of Missouri has been arguing about the need to hold employer's accountable.  

My point is this, although Hillary may be despised by the conservatives, by the time the election rolls around, wont Obama or Edwards or anyone else be painted as a generic Democrat and wont it be a much closer election, like the numbers we see with Clinton? In addition to a candidate's positions, I know likeability, perceived experience, and other variables come into play, which may benefit Obama and Edwards. I just remember that the public had a much better perception of John Kerry around this time four years ago, but the perception changed once the Republican machine began its attacks on his record, experience, and policy positions.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that in Iowa, candidates have largely been able to define themselves, and Obama has done a tremendous job. However, he will not always be able to define himself and avoid topics that might not play well with conservatives and independents. Even in New Hampshire, the live free or die state where tax raises don't play well, I would guess that most people if polled would have no clue that Obama advocates eliminating the contribution cap. Obama has been able to frame it as strengthening social security in his ads, but thats about it.  

Also wouldn't Obama's positions on Immigration and Social Security make some of our reps in conservative districts vulnerable? Wouldn't his position on Social Security not really play well in states like Connecticut or New Jersey, especially if the GOP nominee was MCcain or Giuliani?

The thing that struck me about these numbers is that the person with the lowest negatives is the one who has gotten the least amount of MSM coverage.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Instead of trying to game the press, we should be trying to crush them.  There should be calls to MSNBC every time Matthews pulls his schtick.  Same thing with other hosts.  They are out of step with most of the American public.  They should be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity.  They are not our friends.  They've learned nothing from 2000 and 2004.  If anyone thinks it's just a matter of nominating X - that it's not the press, it's the nominee - they're mistaken.