...Hillary has actually run a very mild campaign against Obama. She has really fought him in an almost hands off way.

Remember Mondale and how he eviscerated Gary Hart with his "Where's the Beef" campaign? Nothing like that is happening in this campaign, but it could and it probably should. Obama needs to be challenged hard on the issues before the Republicans get a crack at him.

If Obama's supporters are going to be mainly blacks and well off whites, then he's vulnerable to a social issues campaign in the fall. McCain, if he's the nominee, could try to peel off working class Democrats by exploiting class tensions among the Democrats. He could run on 'hiphop' and affirmative action. He could run against 'green' issues as well, another play for the working class. Yet another issue could be 'comparative worth,' an issue that both Obama and Clinton have unfortunately endorsed.

2008 could turn out to be a replay of 1988, with Obama playing Dukakis and McCain Bush the First. In that year, everyone was tired of Reagan and the Republicans. Everyone wanted 'change' in that year as well. And like Obama, Dukakis didn't want to run on basic bread and butter Democratic issues but instead wanted to make the election all about 'competence.' But Bush ran on every nasty social issue in the book and won in the end.

Reagan had a job approval rating in the sixties in 1988. Bush has dipped below 30 and I am g going to go out on a limb here and predict he doesn't crack 50 any time soon.

Running against the Bush legacy will be much easier to run against then the Reagan legacy

Too bad you haven't been following the campaign or policy proposals. Last time I checked, obama was not for affirmative action and mccain supported green policies so I don't see how that plays out in an election.

last time i checked, the california debate was one big wonkfest with both candidates going into policy details and proposals. maybe that's why clinto could not not make a "where's the beef" comment.

I think it's fair to say people were tired of Reagan in 1988. The Iran contra scandals cast a pall and he was obviously a bit dotty.

Clinton had approval ratings in the 60s as well, but people were tired of him then too.

There was definitely a sense in 1988 that it was going to be a Democratic year. But it turned out not to be that way.

It is not in the Clinton play book for the candidate (Hillary) to make a direct attack on the opponent, but rather have someone else do it. Making a direct attack would be, well, to honest for the Clinton's liking. They have tried using Bill, but he is just to close, and it back-fired. Now you will see other Clintonista flaks and flunkys doing the dirty work of trying to slime Senator Obama. I read an Op-Ed by Marie Cocco the other day, pimping the same racist crap Bill tried in South Carolina, that a Black Man just can't win in a general election. At least we know where she is getting her marching orders.

The truth is Senator Obama is the smart choice for the Dems. Clinton will only snatch defeat from what should be a shoo-in for the Democratic party this year.

If you think the Clinton 'playbook' is to have someone else attack their opponents, please give examples. Opponents were Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas, G.H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, Ross Perot that guy in New York that Hillary beat. Who really attacked them?

What I remember are some fine debates between Bill Clinton and Brown and Tsongas. I remember he was respectful of Bush and Dole and Perot. OTOH I remember LOTS of attacks on Bill and Hillary. I don't remember attacks from them. They didn't really 'do' that. They usually ran on their command of the issues--they made sure they knew what they were talking about.

I still contend this has been a very mild campaign, and it may not be a favor to Obama to have run such a campaign.

Good analysis Nerdy. I certainly do agree that Obama has anything but a lock on the nomination or the general election.

But here's a few things about both:

1.) Hillary has enormous negatives against her. It is hard to understand how many people, including many Democrats, simply can not stand her, or the Clintons in general. She has a floor, but she also has a solid ceiling. As I wrote some at the beginning of the campaign, she is like a stock which is moving sideways. Unless she is caught on tape strangling a kitten, her support won't get measurably lower than it is; unless she is shown on tape making the blind see, her support won't get measurably higher. She's tapped out, frozen in place.

I think you far overestimate how "tired" people were of the Republicans and Reagan in '88. Maybe Democrats were, but not independents, Republicans or conservatives. And the big social issues like Welfare, abortion, etc., were much hotter topics then while the Religious Right was still in its heyday.

This time, conservatives, Republicans, and independents who generally lean conservative, are truly disgusted and at odds with the right. Conservatism as a movement is in serious disarray after 7 years of un-conservative Bush (he's a Big Government right-winger, not a conservative), and simple exhaustion (it's had a very good, long run since Reagan). There is a major revolt occuring on the right at the moment and McCain is a very uninspiring candidate. Conservatism was alive and well in '88.

I am describing such registered Republicans such as myself, who now has an Obama sticker on my car. My 75 year old Republican father recently surprised me to say that he'd "be fine with" a Democrat this time around, and would far prefer Obama over Hillary. He said he's ready to vote for Obama over McCain, and like all of us, would rather bathe in urine than vote for the Clintons.

So, who is likely to get those disaffected conservative, independents and Republicans? Obama. Or they'll just stay home during the general and the remaining primaries. But this does not help Hillary in any way.

This really will be the election where independents make the difference, and that benefits Obama.

2.) I will not count out the Clintons until a stake is driven through their heart. They will never stop fighting, no matter how dirty they need to get. They will injure the Democratic Party, fighting all the way into the convention if necessary. They will plant slander about Obama, they will do everything and anything in their power to restore their place in the White House. They will twist every superdelegate's arm, they will backstab, lie, cheat, steal. Whatever method.

3.) Then, if Obama can withstand the Clinton assault, THAT will how Obama would be able to prove his mettle against McCain, and the general challenges of the presidency. McCain is generally not a terribly mean campaigner, and he's terribly lackluster. We all see him as that "honorable guy who's not a crazed idealogue," and that's about it. Any real ugly Rovian type campaign will just backfire with those independents and disaffected conservatives who are going to decide the election. Put McCain next to Obama and you'll hardly know McCain is on the ballot.

To me, the question in the general comes down to: will it be the Clintons or Obama who will annihilate McCain in the general?

What's the big deal even if Obama wins?

After a few months in office he will be the best hated guy in the US.

He will have to withdraw from Iraq, and leave the place to bloody chaos. Just think how Americans will hate him for the shame of such a defeat !

He will have to cut expenditure drastically to get control of the deficit: they're gonna like him for that.

Hillary, relax. This job at present is hardly worth getting. Let Obama win and fry.

You sit cool and come back after four years, baby.

What, I should support Hillary Clinton out of pity? Now that's an intelligent way to select a president.

The media is biased against Clinton for the same reason I am. They remember the last Clinton administration. Don't forget that Bill Clinton's most lasting legacy is George W. Bush.

EarlyBird:

2.) I will not count out the Clintons until a stake is driven through their heart. They will never stop fighting, no matter how dirty they need to get. They will injure the Democratic Party, fighting all the way into the convention if necessary....

3.) Then, if Obama can withstand the Clinton assault, THAT will how Obama would be able to prove his mettle against McCain,...

To me, the question in the general comes down to: will it be the Clintons or Obama who will annihilate McCain in the general?

Good points, but wouldn't #2 undermine #3?

Could you imagine the fallout of Hillary getting the nomination via super-delegates, while Obama got the most votes? Florida 2000 is a sore spot in the minds of Dems and this would rend the party to schreds; Hillary would be their Bush, an embarassment, all the nasty things they said about Bush because of his 2000 win would come right back at them.

And with an Obama win, I don't know if he's necessarily pick-up Hills supporters. To be a die-hard Clinton fan, you've got to be near fanatical in your loyalty with how many times the Clintons have let people down, they won't shift easily.

Also, I wouldn't count McCain out totally yet; we did that once and look at what happened.

He wouldn't have to put on a cut-throat campaign, all McCain would have to do is simply tell the truth:

Obama is one of the most liberal senators in america.

While he's certainly a nice guy, he's pro-abortion, pro-big government, pro-immediate pullout from Iraq, pro-everything that conservatives do not want.

You pull the lever for Obama, you're voting for more abortions, higher taxes, federal recognition of same-sex marriages, ect.

Nice guy or not, most people don't want america that blue.

I expect that a lot of conservatives are just going to sit this one out, unless Hillary gets the nomination. And even then it's going to be considerably lower turnout for Repubs than Dems.

McCain, who I voted for in the primary, is a very decent, honorable guy, but hardly a staunch conservative. He's not exciting to anyone but as an anti-Democratic vote. He doesn't represent anything to conservatives really. I like McCain, I respect him. We could do worse, but the man has very little energy. (I also personally am not sure that he is a good manager.)

Hillary will get people like me to vote against her. I will vote five times against her if I can. Many people would vote against her, including many independents.

And it's independents who are going to make the difference this election. I think that if Obama gets the nomination he's golden. Those independents who are not so worried about becoming cobalt blue America, will vote for him. (Also, remember that we're voting for a president, not a king. Certainly Obama is very liberal, but he will still have a Republican party to contend with and a moderately conservative American people to deal with. He's generally further to the left of the average Democrat in congress also. That will definitely put some stop-gaps in any hard left lurches.)

I could be totally wrong of course. I take some pride though that I wrote that "McCain will be the next president of the United States" last summer, when his campaign was in ruins and he was dragging his own luggage through the airports. Here he is getting the nomination!

I think the GOP needs some time in the wilderness to rediscover its roots. Bush is hardly conservative. He's a big government right winger, not a conservative. We need to have some time out of power, with an honest and decent liberal in the White House, in order to have a genuine debate about liberal vs. conservative ideas. The Clintons, being narcisistic scumbags, make the presidency about them, and bring out the worst impulses in the GOP, while having them forget about their intellectual roots. That's the major reason I prefer Obama to Shrillary. I mean HillBillary.

2.) I will not count out the Clintons until a stake is driven through their heart. They will never stop fighting, no matter how dirty they need to get. They will injure the Democratic Party, fighting all the way into the convention if necessary. They will plant slander about Obama, they will do everything and anything in their power to restore their place in the White House. They will twist every superdelegate's arm, they will backstab, lie, cheat, steal. Whatever method

Can't say I agree. If this is what they're going to do, shouldn't they have started already?

I still think they really didn't put up much of a fight, and I'm kind of betting they won't.

When you think about it, the Clintons have often benefitted more from the failings of their opponents then from their own skills. From Bush I looking at his watch to that guy charging Hillary's podium, or Crazy Ross or Cranky Dole, they've been pretty lucky in who they've had to face.

Unfortunately for the Clintons, Obama seems to be another kind of candidate altogether. He doesn't seem to make mistakes.

Not a bad thought. In fact, the senator alredy indicated that if she loses, she will be fine as a Senator. The next president will have to be bearer of bad news for the American people. Even more important, (s)he will have to find a way of get indictments and jail terms for those who abused power and the public trust during the past eight years. Failure to achieve any punishments for the abuses will leave a extremely dangerous legacy for future a la Bush republicans that wins the oval office.

Obama's drug policy sucks.

<link>

Harry

Go Hillary

We ain't seen nothing yet. They've been sweet. They've tried simply to be condescending and dismissive of his candidacy and that only hurt them.

I think they've had a hard time being tough on Obama in a way that doesn't come back to bite them, because her negatives are so high and the biggest difference between them is their personalities, rather than their positions. If they could have gotten away with it by now, they would have taken his daughters hostage.

Really, they planned on a coronation until Iowa. I'm reading now about how financially unprepared they were for a long nomination fight. Solis Doyle didn't tell Hillary how broke they were (apparently Hill is a terror to work for), and Solis Doyle only found out about Hillary writing her campaign a 5 million dollar check third hand.

But look at what they have to deal with now:

Policies: Healthcare, education, foreign policy, Iraq, economics are nearly the same as Obama's (classic Democrat Establishment). I actually believe her what to do about Iraq now policy is better and more responsible, but every time she brings that up he can beat her over the head for her vote to authorize the war.

Experience: The only "experience" she can really point to is being part of the White House. Which raises the "What will Bill do during her presidency?" question, and reminds everyone how polarizing they are and how soap operatic their White House was. Her claim of experience only makes her look like less of her own candidate. People really don't want to go backwards.

Personality: She's just not a warm, inspiring person, no matter how hard she practices. People don't like her. They may respect her, but people genuinely start asking themselves, "Do I want this person as my president for the next four to eight years?" and they ask the same from Obama and it's a slam dunk for him. They like and respect him.

I still won't count them out. Billy is already talking about going to war over the Florida and Michigan delegates no matter how destructive that would be. It's only the beginning. Only now will the knives come out in earnest.