Clinton-McCain

email this story
read comments (10)
post a comment

Clinton-McCain, clear choices, two lifetimes of experience. No containing the repulsion...sorry.

"A contender for the Democratic nomination, praising the Republican nominee as preferable to her Democratic rival," Yale lit professor David Bromwich has written, "was a rash act and probably unprecedented. Joe Lieberman did something like it, but only after he declared himself an 'independent.'

"In the same session with reporters, Senator Clinton glowed at the thought of herself and John McCain together. 'Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold,' she said. And again: 'I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He's never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech made in 2002.'

"As other observers have noted, this is the kind of thing you say if you are John McCain's running mate, not what you say if you mean to campaign fiercely against him. It was a remarkably destructive statement -- a defection from party loyalty, and a subversion of the principle that is supposed to underlie such loyalty."

Bill Maher vs. Terry McAuliffe<< previous | next >>Leydon likes "21"

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 8, 2008 at 12:33 PM

comment #1

George Prager says ...

She would make a great president of a homeowner's association.

Posted by George Prager at March 8, 2008 12:43 PM

comment #2

mutinyco says ...

This tying of Clinton to McCain is one of the dumbest, least imaginative campaign strategies I've ever seen.

Obama is not going to defeat Clinton in the primaries. He may wind up with more pledged delegates at the end of the day. But he's not going to outright defeat her -- both opportunities he's had have resulted in face-first splats. It's kind of like a boxing match where a challenger took on the champ, and 2/3 through the fight he's up by a few points -- but there's still another 3 rounds to go. He might ultimately win the decision, but he'll never score a knockout.

Posted by mutinyco at March 8, 2008 1:23 PM

comment #3

JohnCope says ...

"Obama is not going to defeat Clinton in the primaries. He may wind up with more pledged delegates at the end of the day. But he's not going to outright defeat her -- both opportunities he's had have resulted in face-first splats."

You're probably right; the hard question remains though: WHY is that?

Posted by JohnCope at March 8, 2008 2:12 PM

comment #4

le corbeau says ...

Because she's getting the John Edwards vote now, the pissed-off things suck union vote. The person whose experience, if it exists at all, surely includes supposedly screwing union workers with NAFTA is now running as a populist against the pointy-headed intellectuals.

The problem with this is, it's probably a strategy for beating Obama, at least to a draw, but not for beating McCain. Ask Walter Mondale...

Posted by le corbeau at March 8, 2008 2:33 PM

comment #5

Dave says ...

Mgmax, with all due respect-- the John Edwards vote?

That's not much better than saying John McCain got the nomination because he got the Alan Keyes vote.

Signed,
Bitter ex-Fredhead

;-)

Posted by Dave at March 8, 2008 2:50 PM

comment #6

le corbeau says ...

The point is, Edwards' message-- the Shrum populist message-- has a certain constituency in every cycle, even if the man himself proved hardly capable of capturing it this time, and it's never actually gotten a president elected.

Posted by le corbeau at March 8, 2008 2:56 PM

comment #7

George Prager says ...

Edwards/Shrum populist message was alive and well on that 60 minutes story about Ohio. All these fat-assed white people sitting around pining for their $40.00 their factory jobs to come back so they can go to Disneyworld once a year.

Posted by George Prager at March 8, 2008 3:00 PM

comment #8

vp19 says ...

I'm a former Edwards supporter now in the Obama camp, and the anti-populist comments from some of the people here scare me a bit. There are numerous reasons why Obama didn't fare all that well in Ohio and could face problems in Pennsylvania, but smug elitist putdowns of people who aren't voting for him doesn't help matters any.

Posted by vp19 at March 8, 2008 8:50 PM

comment #9