Primary Attacks, General Election Attacks

By Big Tent Democrat

Kevin Drum has an interesting post about when, if ever, attacks by a candidate in a primary contest was used by the opposing Party's candidate in the general election. But I am going to focus on what is at the root of the question - will any attacks by Clinton or Obama be used by McCain in the general election - not the substance of the attacks, which would come no matter what - but the fact that the primary opponent attacked on that issue. .

Three come to mind for me - one, Hillary Clinton's attack on Obama experience and Commander in Chief credentials. That one seems sure to surface in a McCain campaign against Obama. Two, Obama's attack on Hillary Clinton's health care plan mandates - the Harry and Louise stuff arguing Hillary will force you to buy health insurance even if you can not afford it. Three, Obama's attacks on Hillary Clinton's character, the "she'll say anything to get elected" stuff. This is why I have been highly critical of these three lines of attack.

Can you folks think of any others?

< What's Obama's Saying About Mail-In Revotes in Fl. and MI? | The Candidates On NASA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    tried to do my best.... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Miss Devore on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:05:55 PM EST

    okay... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:07:43 PM EST
    now, you have me thinking of neil young's tired eyes...

    Helpless . . . (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:09:11 PM EST
    GOP would have used this stuff anyway (none / 0) (#82)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:17:48 AM EST
    "Clinton's attack on Obama experience and Commander in Chief credentials. That one seems sure to surface in a McCain campaign against Obama."

    McCain was bound to use this one even if Clinton hadn't brought it up.

    McCain would probably also use the Harry and Louise stuff without Obama's attack.


    HRC (legitimately) brought up (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:26:07 PM EST
    BO not holding a hearing--I can see McCain using using that.  Why wouldn't he?

    Missing my point (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:28:10 PM EST
    that HILLARY attaked on the issue as a weapon.

    The issue is there and would be used anyway.


    Ooop, sorry-- (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:35:21 PM EST
    now I get it.  But continuing on my point, BO admitting (on tape) that he was too busy campaigning for president to hold a hearing will be used.  Does that count?

    He's also on tape admitting in 2004 that he's not experienced enough to run for president yet.  So he wasn't experienced enough to run for president, but basically the minute he gets to the Senate he starts running for office and can't do the job he was hired for?  I can't believe HRC hasn't run away with this yet.  

    I've read that he promised (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:36:30 PM EST
    not to run for President. I don't think people really much care about that stuff, though.

    I'm guessing (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:37:50 PM EST
    that if Hillary ends up being the nominee, the Obama campaign and people like Donna Brazile will get the "will do anything to win" attack up and running for McCain - he won't have to do much to keep it going.

    The GOP was always going to attack Obama on his lack of national security cred, and his failing to have subcommittee hearings will tie in nicely with that.

    I also think that Obama's Harry and Louise ad hurts him more than it hurts her, although I think whichever Dem is the nominee will face attacks on that front.  Hillary is just better able to make the case for her plan than Obama is for his - and his own ad will appear to be more of the say-one-thing-and-do-another that seems to be emerging as a pattern of his.

    I think Obama has made enough mistakes of late that the GOP may not need to dip too far into Dem-on-Dem attacks to get a strong anti-Obama campaign going.

    But - given that there is a boatload of material with which to go after McCain, I think, in the end, whatever attacks the GOP uses against the Democratic nominee will seem pretty desperate.

    "she will do anything to win" (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:38:23 PM EST
    only works if you are running an "above it all" campaign.

    I've never understood that tact, though.  Don't you want someone who is willing to fight to win?  Why are we so afraid to get our hands dirty?  The freakin' nation, if not the safety of the world, is at stake.  We are torturing people in America's name.  Our economy is in the toilet. People are dying without adequate healthcare.  Families are losing their homes.  Children go to rat-infested schools.  Holy crap, if now isn't the time to fight for something, to get your hands dirty, when is?


    "anything to win" (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:06:51 PM EST
    The point is that she will SAY anything to win-i.e. pander to anyone, and that whatever she says cannot be trusted.  People don't trust a panderer, and McCain has the opposite reputation.  Even the Boeing "blowback" about his blocking the corrupt contract will support this.  
    It's time for a draft-Gore-Obama.

    Oh. And Obama's Not 'saying anything' To Win? (none / 0) (#83)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:22:19 AM EST
    The Harry and Louise ad will hurt HC (none / 0) (#40)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:51:14 PM EST
    badly in the GE if she gets the nomination. Why would it hurt Obama in the GE?

    Self-inflicted but I can see them using that Social Security "crisis" against Obama if it becomes an issue in the GE and he is in a position of having to defend it.


    Experience is a legitimate concern (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by esmense on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:43:21 PM EST
    ...that would be and should be raised for any candidate who has been on the national stage as briefly as Obama. Any more experienced opponent, against a newcomer like Obama, would try to make their greater experience a selling point. Has Clinton attacked Obama's lack of experience in some particularly dastardly way that would give extra strength to McCain's own experience argument in the general election? I haven't seen or heard it.

    Obama counters the experience argument with "judgement." And perhaps that will be the winning argument in both the primaries and the GE.

    But, I think there is another aspect of experience that hasn't gotten much discussion -- how it relates to trust. At issue isn't just the candidate's "on the job" experience and what that means in terms of what he knows about doing the job, but also, perhaps even more important, the voters' experience with the candidate. A longer public record means there's more information for a voter to use in making their judgement about the candidate and his commitment to, or lack of action on, the issues they think are most important.

    I think it is an argument, but not an "attack," to say "my opponent has less experience than me" and therefore you can trust me more in a crisis. But, it is an attack to say my opponent, as a person, is less trustworthy than me.

    Obama has suggested that Clinton is less trustworthy, in terms of character, than he is. I have not seen Clinton make similar claims about him. But, whether she does or not, you can be sure that the Republicans will do everything they can to suggest Obama is untrustworthy -- and they'll be helped in doing so by his newness on the political scene and the average voters' lack of experience with him as a public figure.

    Not that it will be used by McCain (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:06:56 PM EST
    but she--or her camp--accused him of not being a real pro-choice supporter.

    When President Clinton said Obama was running to be "president for people who don't need one" he was questioning Obama's commitment to the poor.

    Basically any attack that is not predicated on the validity of policy, ie, his health plan leaves out 15 million (though that is debatable) is essentially an attack on their truthiness, to use Colbert's term, and all politicians do it.

    You make a good point about records being more about our experience with them than their actual preparedness to be president; after all, there really is no experience that can train you to be leader of the free world, aside from maybe vice president, but even then only if you're a part of the inner circle and not just a funeral stand-in and head legislator.

    Nobody who has not been president is truly prepared to lead the free world. It is a singular position that requires someone with the judgment, wisdom, intelligence, and character to do the job. Experience matters because we reward public servants with those qualities based on their previous performance. Obama has people's trust because he does have a history we can look at, has demonstrated a character that is appealing, and is certainly as intelligent as anybody else running.

    Nobody has universal support; that's why we have elections. So far, Obama and Clinton have shown that Democrats essentially trust either of them to lead. The GOP only had one viable candidate, and thus he is already identified and settled upon. Either of the people we choose should win, but it would be best if the attacks were kept to policy and not character. Sadly, policy is boring while character attacks and salacious claims of dishonesty are much easier to digest and play out better on cable news.


    But what does the (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:45:36 PM EST
    "she'll do anything to win" really mean.  I've been looking for work since grad school and did "everything I could" to get a great job--why is that bad?  

    What's implied--that she'll lie, steal, cheat, etc?  If so, that will have to be said more explicitly.  

    x (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:09:05 PM EST
    I have no doubts it will be said more explicitly. Much more.

    I think Chris Matthews had a most memorable line when he said that Al Gore would "lick the bathroom floor" to become president.


    The implied argument (none / 0) (#41)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:51:43 PM EST
    tends to leave it up to the audience member to "get" the implication of underhanded without actually having to say it. That way it seems a whole lot more ominous and sneaky than the speaker is comfortable saying explicitly.

    The suggestion or hint is far more tantalizing than reality...and encompasses a whole lot.


    Ive heard it said that in the past because of all (none / 0) (#65)
    by Salt on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:46:23 PM EST
    the Starr investigations that many people indicate they dont trust Hillary so that's what they are exploiting my guess hwy else ask for her taxes.

    I think for Obama he hits, NAFTA and the Can meeting, Iraq and the BBC footage, and the wife proud of America but generally, Rezko for his ties to Syria Farrakhan not friends of Israel stuff, No. 1 most Liberal nice guy new but....

    Clinton Billary all the time, Bill dalliance rumors no doubt, Commander in Chief readiness, and is she trustworthy secretive, her ambition, fund raising ya know cant recall the name, her desire for a Palestine State friend of Mrs Arafat, being a racist monster sillyness.

    All good stuff but they have lots on McCain who can forget the photo when hes walking through the Bagdad market, temperament, age fitness, economics, Keating 5 ties to Bush, Bush III.

    Obama's at the most risk because he is not known as well but hey if his coverage holds up over a McCain love feast then maybe he'll be ok.


    Aha. You bring up Michelle Obama, and (none / 0) (#75)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:31:59 AM EST
    I think several of her hits on Hillary can be counted as essentially his -- as Michelle Obama has had that role so that he can stay "above the fray."

    The Michelle Obama frames have included: that it's the Clintons running for the White House again -- and I think McCain could use that; that the Clintons are racists -- not sure Republicans can use that beyond their AAs; and that Clinton can't keep her own house in order -- i.e., Bill messed around . . . and I suspect that there is a way that McCain or perhaps spouse Cindy can go on that attack again.

    And there is more from Michelle Obama, but I'll stop in case this is off topic, and it's to be about The One and The One Only.


    Not Sure What Will Fly (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:52:18 PM EST
    And according to Drum, that kind of recycling usually does not amount to much.

    CIC will be used against both of them, lack of experience for both, too emotional for HRC, BHO dreamy liberal latte sipper.

    "Change" = empty rhetoric, against Obama, which will backfire imo, given it's McBush.

    Clinton dynasty meme.

    Also lots of dogwhistles.

    Aha -- the Obama line of attack (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:36:18 AM EST
    that Hillary is too emotional, as you say -- she can be brought to the verge of tears, blah blah -- is something that will surface some way from McCain.  Or from his spouse, just speaking woman to woman, y'know -- the spousal work with Republican women's groups always is significant in the party's success.

    As I Say? (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:01:12 AM EST
    What? Not sure what you are implying, but just to be clear, I do not remotely believe that HRC is too emotional to be CIC. Nor have I ever said anything close to that.

    I said that you said, as you did (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:07:11 AM EST
    that it would be the line of attack -- but not an attack from you.

    Yes (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:43:40 PM EST
    Thanks for the clarification, that is what I thought you meant, but wanted to make it clear that I think HRC would be fine as CIC. In fact being able to feel, read empathy, seems as if it would be a huge plus, refreshing actually,  after seeing how a sociopath lacking any vestiges of empathy performed as CIC.  

    HRC/BO will use (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:14:59 PM EST
    McCain saying he doesn't know much about the economy--or whatever he said--against him.  

    "Bomb-bomb-bomb... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:40:08 PM EST
    bomb-bomb Iran..."

    Cut with footage of what bombs do, maybe some injured American soldiers?


    bomb iran (none / 0) (#68)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:14:26 PM EST
    Most people would prefer a candidate who at least preserved the option of bombing Iranian installations before they built a nuclear bomb.  What would Hillary say?

    Bradley accused Gore (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:05:36 PM EST
    of dishonesty.  That was picked up in the general.  It was a lie both times.

    But some attacks are inevitible.  Obama's lack of experience for example.

    The whole foundation of Obama's campaign: (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by phat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:49:10 PM EST
    His campaign rhetoric is an attack on Clinton and the party itself, as far as I'm concerned.

    Post-partisanship and all of that garbage. McCain can easily use that. He's a maverick, you know.


    I thinkj most of you still don't get (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:19:37 AM EST
    the point of the original post. The question isn't whether McCain will use the different lines of attack being mentioned here, it's wehether he will use the fact that the attacks came from a Democrat as a way to validate them.

    As Kevin Drum pointed out, and I pointed out in comments some time ago, there are very few examples of that happening. All Obama has to say is "apparently Democratic voters didn't agree with her." Statements from soemone who was unable to win the nomination of her own party will carry very little weight, IMO.

    trying again (none / 0) (#2)
    by Miss Devore on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:07:05 PM EST
    Um (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:08:53 PM EST
    Not following your point here. Hillary seems not have said anything, nor Obama, in what you link.

    But She Made You Look (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:29:48 PM EST
    That she did (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:31:19 PM EST
    Got Me Too (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:35:03 PM EST
    Although she promised nothing:

    tried to do my best....

    I managed a Republican primary challenge (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:09:32 PM EST
    to Senator Bob Kasten in 1992. by the time we were done, Feingold, who eventually emerged from the Dem Primary, could afford to take the "high road," as we'd already branded Kasten as a slobbering drunk.

    If they're effective doesn't matter if McCain "uses' the Primary attacks.

    Good point (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:12:45 PM EST
    Expand my question, which attacks have stuck in your opinion?

    x (none / 0) (#15)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:21:01 PM EST
    I think Willie Horton stuck.

    I don't (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:30:48 PM EST
    No one remembered it until that independent group ran the ad.

    BTW, Dukakis' worst moment was self inflicted - the tank ride.


    x (none / 0) (#27)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:35:14 PM EST
    So, defining the candidate rather than providing an attack.

    Horse of a different color and a lot harder to think of examples.


    Ugh, don't remind me. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:35:48 PM EST
    x (none / 0) (#34)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:40:49 PM EST
    I think Dukakis' worst moment was the Kitty Dukakis rape hypothetical in the debate. YMMV.

    And Bush the Elder's worst moment was the Newsweek cover "The Wimp Factor."

    It really seems to me that the most successful tactic in American politics is to depict your opponent as weak, less than manly.

    Even H. Clinton doing so well is, IMO, to some degree a nod to her perceived toughness. Had the Rs and the media behaved a little better in the 90s we might not even have HRC as a viable candidate.


    well thank you Tweety (none / 0) (#60)
    by delandjim on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:41:56 PM EST
    I realize it was (none / 0) (#61)
    by DaytonDem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:48:34 PM EST
    a long time ago ,but I distinctly remember CNN talking about the repugs turning Horton into the Dukakis running mate. It was central.

    Yes but wasn't that the truth? (n/t) (none / 0) (#12)
    by ineedalife on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    Made our task easier. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:10:38 AM EST
    I named him "Wrongway Bob," a reference to his being pulled over trying to enter the Beltway from an off ramp, and claiming congressional immunity.

    All the PRESENT votes in the IL senate. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Angel on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:11:16 PM EST

    That Hillary mentioned them? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:12:09 PM EST
    Nah. Stand alone yes. But not that Hillary said anything about them.

    Obama has written a McCain ad against himself (none / 0) (#10)
    by ineedalife on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:13:20 PM EST
    Obama boasts he has never taken a 3AM call but McCain hasn't either. Wrong. McCain was a military commander in war and later commanded a larger unit. He has taken plenty of 3AM calls. Better believe we will see this ad.

    Even further after that ad Obama will be in the position that he either has to concede the issue or belittle (swiftboat) McCain's military service. Do we really want to go there? Will John Kerry stand by and watch it happen?

    Obama has been entirely tone deaf on this whole leadership issue from the knee-jerk response to Hillary's ad to this.

    I can think of an example from the past (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:13:49 PM EST
    In the 2002  PA Gubanatorial primary, Ed Rendell attacked Bob Casey as being inexperienced. Rick Santorum turned around to try and use Rendell's words against Casey in 2006. Didn't really work.

    How about the Obama campaign's (none / 0) (#14)
    by dk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:20:41 PM EST
    implications that the Clintons are racists?  (And I'll say that I don't think this has come publicly from Obama himself, but it has popped up from surrogates, including (indirectly) his own wife).

    Now, at first glance, it would seem hard for the Republicans, of all people, to make anything of this.  But, my bet is that they could figure out a way to do it.  The more African Americans they could get to stay home on election day, the bigger the chance McCain could win against Hillary.

    If Clinton wins the nomination (none / 0) (#46)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:01:34 PM EST
    the Republican narrative will be "look at that nasty, racial campaign the Clintons used to beat that nice, inspiring Barack Obama."

    This has already been previewed in some Dick Morris columns.  Obama's surrogates and supporters have provided so much fodder for this line of attack.

    The mostly untrue narrative that this is a nasty, divisive primary only ends up helping the Republicans in the GE.


    Thst was the plan early (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:31:35 PM EST
    Now I am not so sure anymore.

    Hillary can be challanged on policy (none / 0) (#69)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:31:15 PM EST
    but I would not think it a good idea to attack her personally like the blogs and MSM did.

    I think the attacking "everything Hillary" does not and will not work. Women were more than a little upset about this.

    Plus Dick Morris has some baggage of his own. Only MSNBC and Fox have him on anymore.


    It might be a mistake (none / 0) (#72)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:14:00 PM EST
    but I think the GOP only has one gear when it comes to attacking Hillary.

    With Obama they actually seem to have gotten a little smarter and are backing away from the more blatant racist attacks, the "Hussein" thing, etc.  Kind of interesting.


    That one you came up with (none / 0) (#16)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:21:04 PM EST
    was going to appear regardless. McCain'd already been starting up the whole "Been there, Done that" mantra with regards to his time in the Senate.

    The one where Obama hasn't run a single hearing as committee chair will get a lot of play from the guy who ran the committee hearings re: Abramoff.

    good point (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:28:52 PM EST
    All of you missing my point (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:29:41 PM EST
    Not that the attack will be used, but that HILLARY or OBAMA attacked on the issue will be used.

    To wit "even Hillary Clinton said you are not experienced enough to be C-i-C."


    I think that you could give (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:35:42 PM EST
    Clinton "credit" for bringing it up, but there is no way in heck McCain would not have employed the exact same thing (only more harsh and more explicit)

    Honestly, I don't think McCain will try the "desperate" thing with Clinton.  The PACs and 527s might, but not McCain, and even then, they might backfire big time.

    What they will use full force is the attack on her healthcare plan, but again, I am not sure you can give Obama "credit" for it.

    In short, the attacks being made against each other are the same attacks they are both vulnerable to in the ge.

    To be surprised or outraged by the inexperienced argument against Obama, as if that was something McCain had no idea about (images of McCain pacing the floor..."what can I attack him with?  What possible weakness could the Mighty O have?" then he turns on the TV and relief!  "Thank you, Hillary!  I would've never thought of that!") is really stupid.


    Not missing your point... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:37:17 PM EST
    but given the fact that right now Conservatives are still cranky about McCain (some think he's a liberal because he's worked with Teddy Kennedy and Russ Feingold on legislation), the last thing he's going to want to do is come out and say "Even Hillary said" stuff.

    He doesn't have to.

    He'll use that experience argument against both of them. He started it before Clinton came out with that comment.


    All of it (none / 0) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    Would it be appropriate to think they will use all of it....  Obama says Clinton is not electable because of old baggage.  McCain says me too.  Obama says Clinton's experience isn't real.  McCain, me too.  Obama says she is secretive because of taxes.  McCain finds something else and says, me too.

    Clinton says Obama is inexperienced.  McCain, me too.  Clinton says Obama is just another pol.  McCain, me too.

    Clinton is running on experience.  Obama on newness.  Every time they criticize, someone is creating a record.  I thought this was one of the reasons the long season was a negative.

    My question... what wouldn't be used?


    x (none / 0) (#18)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:26:21 PM EST
    I think the comments about McCain's temper from his fellow Rs will come into play as an arrow in the Dem nominee's quiver.

    The ones mentioned in your post - the only one not too obvious a tack to take is Harry and Louise about the mandates. That's an addition that may come back to bite.

    possibly... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:32:00 PM EST
    hart's attacks on mondale as being too beholden to unions and traditional democratic interest groups?

    Bill Bradley's attacks on Gore (none / 0) (#32)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:37:42 PM EST
    that essentially started the press's "Gore is such a liar" theme.

    Didn't he also say some of the same things about Hillary on a Face the Nation?

    Yes, Bradley still hasn't let that go. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:52:21 PM EST
    Real sour grapes.

    Judgement (none / 0) (#38)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:47:10 PM EST
    well, BO admitted that buying the house with Rezko was "boneheaded."  Can't McCain use that admitted lapse in judgment against him?

    Hahaha (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:57:19 PM EST
    I can just see it:

    McCain: Do we really need another bonehead as Prez.

    Too bad, unlike the Chimp, he is a wiz kid and this line is sure to blow up in his face like an exploding cigar.


    McCain will definitely run a 3 am ad. (none / 0) (#39)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:50:15 PM EST
    He'll also ran ads with the clips of Clinton certifying his readiness to serve, lifetime experience, and Obama's 2002 speech.

    Some Rove 527 may run with the "not as far as I know" comment, saying that even Clinton doesn't know for sure that Obama is not Muslim.

    An ad will feature Bill Clinton using the words "fairy tale."

    Clips of Hillary's "speeches don't matter, results matter." Cut to McCain's list of bipartisan bills to tout his "change" creds.

    Clips of Hillary talking about Obama's "slum landlord Rezko."

    Clips of Clintons accusing Obama of saying "Republicans had best ideas." They will also run ads featuring his actual comments, too, to note McCain's participation as a Reagan foot soldier.

    Ads featuring Clinton mocking Obama's inspirational qualities.

    Man, she has provided tons of material.

    I don't believe she will be the nominee, but I really doubt that they'll use him against her.
    Frankly, they have file cabinets full of attacks on the Clintons. Obama is not really useful in that arena. Well, you're right about the forcing people to buy insurance. And Plouffe calling her "the most secretive politician." That will just foment the Clinton distrust, revving up the GOP base.

    That's why I actually hope she turns him down if he does as Rendell says and offers her a spot on the ticket. We definitely don't want him tied to the very people we want to "turn the page" on. Oh, McCain might use that line, too. But again, I don't think he'll use Obama against her as much as he will use her against him.

    x (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:11:12 PM EST
    This campaign has obviously warped your world view. Clinton is not a selling point in a GOP ad.

    I have to agree that Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:34:25 AM EST
    is not likely to be McCain's means to persuade the conservatives that he needs.

    Do you have an actual point? (none / 0) (#53)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:30:39 PM EST
    Or do you just wanna call me names? The thread asked how the GOP would use attacks from the candidates. I answered.

    Having the most popular Democrat couple in 40 years on tape dissing the current nominee is a big selling point in that it suppresses votes.

    You see, elections are not so much about convincing people with your rhetoric to actually come out and vote for you. They are as much or not more about convincing people to stay home instead of voting for someone they might otherwise support.

    Now, if you have anything valid to say, I will await your response. Otherwise, take your anger somewhere else.


    x (none / 0) (#55)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:03:46 PM EST
    I am not angry. I'm merely pointing out that I am sure John McCain would like to air some of his own attack ads, ones without relying on Hillary Clinton, and the general election season simply isn't long enough to go through your whole list. Give the guy a chance!

    With Rove and Mehlman on his team (none / 0) (#56)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:23:00 PM EST
    you can bet your bottom dollar he'll come up with some doozies!!

    Darned right. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:02:39 PM EST
    But "respectfully," of course.

    of course, my friends :-) (none / 0) (#64)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:50:32 PM EST
    I'm not so sure... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Polkan on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:58:26 PM EST
    If Obama is the nominee despite the CiC attack from Clinton, it would mean he was able to offer something that outweights that line of attack. In other words, if this attack didn't work for Hillary, what's the reason to believe it would work for McCain?

    The same reasoning applies if Clinton is the nominee, and so far the only Obama attacks are either the character issues (anything to win, racism) or the Republican attacks (Harry & Louise).

    My view is if either Dem candidate survives the other's attacks, it will make him/her stronger in the GE

    How About Obama Saying Social Security Was (none / 0) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:04:46 PM EST
    in a crisis? Dems spent months arguing that there was NO crisis on Social Security. Obama's statement could be used to brand every Dem who said their was no crisis as having lied to the American public.

    Social Security (none / 0) (#67)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:11:18 PM EST
    Guess what-bloggers are baby boomers, but lots of young people have little faith that Social Security will be there for them.  At least Obama expresses some concern that way rather than sticking his head in the sand.

    We call that (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:19:06 PM EST
    a pander, since there actually is no problem with SS.

    I thought Obama's new kind of politics was above exploiting fear in order to win elections?


    what mccain himself will do and what (none / 0) (#71)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:04:56 PM EST
    his surrogates will do are two different things. the swiftboating of obama worries me. think about that. hillary has already been down that trail.

    Not to worry (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:54:51 AM EST
    He's been hit with the kitchen sink strategy since Feb. 5th by Team Hillary. Geraldine Ferraro just recently said he's only ahead because he's lucky enough to be black. The good news is he's learning how to respond and how not to respond, and he will have at least another month or two of that kind of training. The downside is that the Rethug's Rovian hit men will get to see what sticks and what doesn't and hone their messages accordingly for the general election.

    sorry, but i don't agree. (none / 0) (#85)
    by hellothere on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:05:21 AM EST
    this primary is nothing compared to what will happen. also obama has turned off many in the democratic base.

    the republicans will stop at nothing. also obama seems to think the press wil continue to give him a pass. that won't happen either. watch and see.