Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- President Obama Tries to Get the Momentum Back on Health Care Reform
- Labor Leaders Push Obama for Second Stimulus Package
- President Obama to Jewish Leaders: Every Time I’m on Al Jazeera They Show Me at the Western Wall with a Yarmulke On
- If a Teleprompter Falls in the White House Does It Make a Sound?
- Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 7/13/2009
- Obama on his US Surgeon Nominee, She Has Seen What’s “Broken” About Health Care
- President Obama Puts Congress 'On Notice' Regarding Health Care Reform: 'We Are Going to Get This Done'
- Surgeon General Nominee Was World News Tonight’s Person of the Week in 1995
- The Doctor Is (Finally) In: Obama To Nominate Regina Benjamin as Surgeon General
- President Obama Refocuses on Health Care/Stimulus
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Clinton Campaign: Hillary Better to Beat McCain
February 02, 2008 7:11 PM
Clinton campaign senior adviser Mark Penn has written a memo explaining why he believes Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is far better equipped than Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., to beat the Republican who (at least at this precise moment) seems likeliest to be the GOP nominee.
Obama has been slamming McCain on the stump a lot these days, presumably to let voters imagine how he would go at it, and to assuage fears he's not tough enough for a general election -- that he can't punch or take a punch. Lots of Edwards supporters -- and maybe even Edwards himself -- share this concern.
So Mark Penn lays it out: "Hillary is the Democrat who can beat him -- because she has the strength and experience a president needs to get America on the right course and to defend it against future threats. ...Sen. Obama has been telling voters that he is the one to beat Sen. McCain because he gave a speech against the war in 2002 and because he is currently attracting independent voters. But those arguments don’t hold up to current polling, to history or to what is likely to happen in a general election.
"First, there is no support to Sen. Obama’s assertion that his 2002 speech makes him a stronger choice in a general election. Recent history shows that voters look to who they believe can end a war and protect us against future wars. No one believes that if Hillary had been president she would have started the war. In fact, Hillary is backed by prominent anti-war leaders because they believe she is uniquely able to end the war responsibly.
"Based on recent polls, there is nothing to support Sen. Obama's arguments about his prospective performance against Sen. McCain -- both Sen. Obama and Hillary start off within the margin of error against Sen. McCain. Yesterday's Fox poll showed both in a statistical tie with Sen. McCain. And Hillary's negatives are fully factored in, whereas the same cannot be said of Sen. Obama because he is -- by his own admission -- not as well known.
"Sen. Obama’s support among independents comes from Democratic-leaning independents, voters who are likely to back the eventual Democratic nominee. He has no overall advantage in the polls against Sen. McCain. But such voters have very little information about Sen. Obama. And once the Republican machine begins to methodically attack him, he will lose independent support.
"So in a head to head against Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama has no advantage with swing voters. The 2004 election was determined by two key groups -- women concerned about security and Latinos -- and against Sen. McCain those groups could again prove decisive. President Bush won 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004 and Sen. McCain, unlike other Republicans, has been supportive of immigration reform. These are two groups that enthusiastically support Hillary."
He then concludes with a hint towards the Obama-hasn't-been-fully-vetted argument, saying, "if Sen. McCain is the nominee, Hillary is the one well-positioned to beat him. Already well vetted, she is ready to stand up to Sen. McCain on national security and put together a winning coalition of voters that will take back the White House."
And so I ask you from the press desk at a McCain rally in Atlanta, where "Johnny Be Good" is blaring in the background -- which Democrat would be most likely to beat Johnny Mack? Hillary or Barack?
- jpt
February 2, 2008 in Clinton, Hillary, Obama, Barack | Permalink | Share | User Comments (150)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Sorry,
Stephan Merker, My remarks were directed at Doug.
However, I have to comment our yours about Obama playing the "race card"
Sorry guy, but it was the Clintons that played the race card.
Posted by: bhall | Feb 11, 2008 2:43:19 AM
Hey Stephan Merker,
So you cannot think of a single goverment program that has been successful? Try Medicare, which has proven to be much more efficient than out barbaric private health care system in this country. The fact is there are some things government does better than the private sector, and some things the private sector does better. It's mindless worship of right wing ideaology and some abstract concept known as "the free market" that prevents you from using your God given brain and thinking pragmatically about particular issues. That is why I would never vote for McCain even though I like him personally. He still thinks the "free market" is how to solve our health care crisis; the one that is killing our middle class (How dare a middle class wage earner have the audacity to get sick in his or her old age! Take their house away, and in the process do not let them declare bankruptcy.) Oh, and by the way, I suppose you are in favor of doing away with government control of the US Navy, Army, Marines and Air Force. They are all run by the governemnt so I guess they have to be failures.
Posted by: bhall | Feb 11, 2008 2:39:28 AM
I never post on blogs, ever. But I cannot stand it --- economic prosperity? hmmm remember that ... hmmm -- universal health care on the table ... remember that -- okay. how about 8 years experience in the White House, brains, stamina, connections, money, and huge base of support among the broad band of blue collar Americans. Oops. Sorry all you rich folk who want Obama because ...umm ... he did community service and is a one term senator. Our next President must hit the ground running, surrounded by experienced people, or America will be in even great trouble than it already is in. There is only one person who can do that job: Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Lisa West | Feb 7, 2008 1:15:35 PM
The final truth is that Hillary is much more disliked by many more people of both parties. The democratic leadership has to realize the difference between prefering one candidate (perhaps slightly more prefer Hillary) and utterly despising the other. So many of Obama's supporters truly hate Cliniton that she can't win.
Honestly, she does have the more substantive campaign. But that doesn't matter. Thousands upon thousands of democrats, liberals, and progressives HATE her. I know too many people who will give up on politics completely if she is the democratic nomninee. Bill Clinton may have been the best president we've had in a while, but his free-trade centrism is not what a mobilized progressive party wants. Hillary has shown too many times that she will adjust to a conservative agenda and that she is succeptible to big corporate contributions. She is much more likely to become "Republican-lite," in an effort to appease hard line conservatives.
Ultimately, I agree with American progressives: I do not trust Hillary.
Posted by: evan | Feb 6, 2008 3:16:16 AM
How is this a news story? This is not objective journalism but blatant free advertising for Hillary. And it is silly. Of course an advisor of hers will say she will beat McCain. She is paying his salary.
The truth is Clinton would lose to McCain. There are many news stories and polls that show the right-wing religious groups that pushed Bush into the White House will come out in droves to squash her chance to be president, their dislike of her runs deep. They represent 13-15 percent of all voters.
Clinton can't stand up against the war in Iraq against McCain because she voted yes to the Iraq resolution, giving Bush the authority to invade. And she can't say she didn't have enough information, because she has been quoted numerous times that she didn't read the NIE report before voting, as most senators did who voted no.
Posted by: Lydia | Feb 4, 2008 4:42:07 PM
A Clinton win in the Democratic primaries ASSURES a Republican Group hug and surefire defeat of the Democrats in November. Nothing motivates the righties more than a Clinton.
Posted by: Karl | Feb 4, 2008 3:16:49 PM
LOL - A Hillary Clinton nomination will collapse the Dem party. I'm already eyeing potential Independent candidates in the event that the Dems nominate Clinton. Hillary and Bill have lied to us over and over again. More importantly, they voted with Bush every step of the way, then lied about their position on the war: "I've been against the war since the beginning". That is cowardly and dishonest. Senator Obama spoke out against the war when it was unpopular to do so - when it mattered.
Posted by: EddyNewHope | Feb 4, 2008 2:49:17 PM
I am so sick and tired of empty slogans ! All the Obama supporters do is repeat slogans from his Stump speech. They have nothing of substance to say about him.
Posted by: Kay | Feb 4, 2008 2:36:07 PM
What would Hillary bring to the White House. First, she would bring her ex-con impeached husband, found guilty to obstruction of justice, lying to a federal grand jury, using the Arkansas state troopers to chauffeur him to visit him many mistresses. And what about Jennifer Flowers, Monica ("I did not have sex with that woman") Lewinsky. By the end of the first year the place would be smelling like a house of ill fame. After that, she would be engaged in paying for all the favors she owes for getting her elected.
Posted by: Randle Bate | Feb 4, 2008 1:26:13 PM
Obama would be much better against McCain. The contrast between the two is powrful and given the trends in our Country and given what people are thinking Obama has a much better chance. Hillary is establishment all the way.
Posted by: dave | Feb 4, 2008 12:07:41 PM
In the meantime THE WORLD is waiting for OBAMA. Neither the case the american citicens vote. Just look out in Japan or Europe the people are talking about him and even lesser the Clintons. Personaly, I think Obama has the best chance to get the WH back. For Hillary it'll be more difficult to win against McCain.
Posted by: gertom | Feb 4, 2008 11:59:05 AM
Bull. Hillary Clinton would lose to McCain because there are tons of independent people who do not want 4-8 more years of Bush/Clinton.
I don't care for Romney, but if he's the nominee--I'll vote for him over Clinton. I'd even take Huckabee or Santorum over Clinton. I would rather see the mouldering body of Spiro Agnew as president. Anyone but Hillary.
Clinton supporters can cut/paste the talking points all they want, but far more of America despises her than supports any of the other candidates.
Posted by: Jim | Feb 4, 2008 11:59:04 AM
In the meantime THE WORLD is waiting for OBAMA. Neither the case the american citicens vote. Just look out in Japan or Europe the people are talking about him and even lesser the Clintons. Personaly, I think Obama has the best chance to get the WH back. For Hillary it'll be more difficult to win against McCain.
Posted by: gertom | Feb 4, 2008 11:59:01 AM
Clinton is more electable, and can beat McCain. Obama cannot.
Obama vs. McCain arguement will be about the 2002 vote which to authorize use of force. Useless and distracting arguement which highlights that Obama was not even a senator at the time. Obama gets portrayed as weak on terror, weak on military, and weak on foreign affairs.
Clinton vs. McCain arguement will be about when and how to end the war in Iraq. Clinton now and carefully. McCain never surrender and stay for 100 hundred years. Easy win for Clinton. She looks strong on defense, strong against terrorism, and wise in foreign policy. McCain looks like a stubborn old man.
Clinton is a stronger candidate vs McCain. It is not even close.
Posted by: Chris NY, NY | Feb 4, 2008 10:32:47 AM
A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. He denies his heritage and his religion. Oops made a mistake, I'm a bonehead, when caught dealing with Rezko. His hometown is not the southside of Chicago. He was born and raised in hawaii to an athiest and a muslim. His step father is muslim. He denies himself and who he is. The media will tear him apart in the general election and he dosen't have the backbone to take it. Hillary is used to it she's getting plenty of practice as the media campaigns for Obama. And for the record, we were prosperous during the Clinton administration. As a people and as a government. How soon we do forget.
Posted by: Pat | Feb 4, 2008 9:32:10 AM
polls are not always correct
however it will be interesting to see what the independents do with a McCain /Clinton happening
Posted by: D | Feb 4, 2008 8:43:09 AM
Wishful thinking from the Clinton campaign. Independents will strongly favor McCain. Hillary has too many negatives.
Posted by: jjsmith | Feb 4, 2008 8:14:42 AM
The wine salesman will never admit that his wine is bitter and bad. I am not supprised that Hillary's campaign adviser would say that she can beat Mccain. Do people really want to have the Clinton in the whitehouse? Really? I don't think so. Many will stay home during the general elections because they will not bother voting. The negatives of Hillary being so high, Mc Cain will win. For Hillary to win, the blacks and hispanics need to come out to vote, thing I don't see happening if she wins dirty against Obama. The excited youths will not come out to vote for her. All these millions who got inspired by Obama and voted for the first time, will not bother when their icon will be out. Mccain wins against Hillary, there is no doubt about that.
Posted by: le maire | Feb 4, 2008 7:26:52 AM
If McCain and Hillary are the nominees for their respective parties, I will switch to vote for Hillary. I am an Independent voter that registered Republican for the primaries because I believe in Huckabee's Fair Tax plan (fairtax.org). Hillary is willing to consider Fair Tax, when questioned about it at a rally.
Posted by: lee | Feb 4, 2008 2:56:24 AM
Obama Is NOT the Answer
Even if Obama did become President, he would still have the same issues we have today that he refuses to fix. That being his refusal to support impeachment, his refusal to get the truth on 911, his refusal to end the War in Iraq.
He doesn't want to have tit for tat anamosity in his coronation walk up Pennsylvania Ave. But I say what good is it?
His victory will look as being that Americans have stamped out racism by voting for a black President, while the majority of Congress and the Senate are only 43 black or African-Americans serving in the 110th Congress out of 435 members, while only himself being the only black US Senator of 100 members?
This is quite astonishing when there are so few Black Americans serving in Government today! And so the election is becoming a test to America's resolve in conquering racism, by voting for a Black President? And if that is the case, isn't that itself racism? If we can't elect more black Congress members and more than 1 Black Senator, how does that amount to anything of concern to the real problems in racism verses the real other issues in front of us.
How does racism come before ending the war, investigating 911, and bringing justice to the War crimes of Bush and Cheney through the process of impeachment?
He wrongly believes:
*Paying more at Wal-Mart is worth it for having US jobs. Yet he doesn't like China, where all the goods come from to Walmart: he says:
Europe & Japan are allies, but China is a competitor, Insist on labor and human rights standards for China trade. Bring China to the mat for the currency barb.
*Grow size of military to maintain rotation schedules
*Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report
*Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act
*Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut
*Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge.
"He's a flip flopper"
*Invading Iraq was a bad strategic blunder, but says:
*Military action in Pakistan if we have actionable intel
*FactCheck: Yes, Obama said invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda
*Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat
*Explore nuclear power as part of alternative energy mix, which also means supporting the Depleted Uranium Industry, yet denies Iran the same.
*Extend welfare and Medicaid to illegal immigrants
*Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security
*Real estate deal with felon was "boneheaded" but ethical
*Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already
yet says: All kids should learn about sexual abuse.
Whatever his ambitions he is going no where until this Iraq War is ended and we are out of Iraq, and Afghanistan. His anti impeachment stance is indicative of his War theme, which is nothing more than a Black Bush in the White House.
I don't think Americans want another Colin Powell rerun.
We can go on about our choices toward awarding the office to a Black verses a woman, but wouldn't it solve the problem if we all voted for Oprah?
We are talking about a monumental realization that Obama an unchartered rookie 3 year Senator with no political establishment is going to step in after a major attack on the USA, that killed thousands of Americans, with his fresh administration that even lacks people support in Congress and the Senate and feel safe about the direction and attitude of the nation?
We have Hillary who does have experience since being with her husband for the 2 terms they served, and that institution is still intact waiting to be primed and retuned for the shift.
I think if we are to have a change of President it would make more sense at this time for Hillary. Now I want to be clear that Hillary has yet to come out in support of Impeachment either, and shows more of a willingness to end war, than Obama. Hillary does not mention invading Pakistan, and I would think she would not.
*Absolutely oppose the war in Iraq. (Oct 2007)
*Bring out as many combat troops as quickly as possible. (Oct 2007)
*Goal to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge If Bush doesn't end Iraq war, when I'm president, I will. (Mar 2007)
*Require Bush to redeploy or seek additional authority Cap troops in Iraq and no more blank check for war. (Feb 2007)
*Cut off funds for Iraqi use, but not for troops. (Jan 2007)
*Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately. (Oct 2006)
*Agrees with Newt Gingrich that Iraq policy is a mess.
In fact I am ashamed of both for not being more open to the people in countering the lies and using Impeachment to correct the injustices.
They both ignore the thousands of lost lives of innocent Iraqis, and I would think if we brought justice to that it would heal Iraq much quicker, and give Iraq the justice it needs at this time in seeing that America is a nation of Laws.
This would change the entire attitude of the Middle East, and I even think would change the terrorist activites of Hamas and the Israeli Palestinian issues.
When we ignore the rule of law, and continue on the war path we drain ourselves and lose the influence we so try to acquire.
Myself I suffer greatly here in China, because the Chinese people really look down on America because of the War. Americans can not really be themselves always looking over my shoulder to why this didn't happen, or someone is out to stop my ambitions toward success. It is really terrible.
Here I did not support War, so I leave the US because the US really does not respect freedom of Religion, a religion that forbids war. They force people to pay taxes against religious values. And yet the very American Institution that supports the separation of Church and State think nothing about it in concern to Israels Religious State. It's highly hypocritical.
Now I face a dilimmena in which I have no renewal to my contract here because of the non-confidence and I am left without a job, having a wife and 2 children to support, and no house to live in. I am looking more and more to climbing a tall building to jump off the world because of this unseemingly unjust mess. There is too much pressure. I am at wits end, and left believing that ......dead is somehow better?
In fact many of these issues I think is why China keeps the unchanged currency locked, because making China part of the lawlessness in America is something they don't want to do in the eyes of the world.
Can you imagine if they increased the yuan value to promote US trade? It would give more money for Bush and the war effort. They don't support war, and that's why we have this trade and currency dispute.
Granted the China government supports the US while the US allows trade from China, but they certainly do not accept the injustices of the Bush Administration and the idea that the US can simply ignore the unjust War in Iraq.
So all the blaming of China from the US, needs to be retracted and the US bring justice to their own situation.
This means Impeachment and its success.
I know once the war is ended, and justice is brought to the thousands of victims in Iraq; better relations will come, and trade with America will be of utmost concern.
They will make China currency more in line to American and vice a versa.
So the issue is bringing justice. Barack is clearly opposed, in which I have his letter of non support to impeachment, and Hillary has yet made a committment, although I feel she would be more inclined to favor impeachment since the fiasco that happened to her husband.
The bet is she would favor impeachment. If not...we are in for a long grueling unhappy state of affairs of the same neglection of Justice for the innocent.
Obama is not the Answer, and with his reluctance to protect the rights of the innocent victims in Iraq, really proves how discriminatory and racist he is.
If it's not about Race Barack, then are you in this campaign only for yourself or for others who died by the hand of Bush?Clearly Mr. Obama you are pushing a Hypocritical Democratic Agenda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Dominic Jermano | Feb 4, 2008 2:32:47 AM
Post a comment

