Now that John McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee, the Democratic Party is starting to attack him. The Democratic National Committee is sending out a fund raising letter seeking funds specifically for this purpose. The problem is that their fund raising letter highlights how weak the Democratic case will be if they nominate Hilary Clinton. There are certainly reasons to promote the Democratic candidates over John McCain, but Factcheck.org finds a number of major errors in the current attack. If Clinton wins the nomination I’m sure that such attempts at dishonest smears will continue–and probably backfire. If the Democrats want to show that they deserve the votes of those who have abandoned the Republicans, they need to keep it honest.
Many of the attacks simply do not work if Clinton is the nominee. The DNC writes, “We can’t afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq.” A candidate who both supported the war and voted for Kyl-Lieberman doesn’t come across as convincing in arguing based as a supporter of peace.
The DNC raises John McCain’s admission that he still needs to be educated in economics. I feel more comfortable with someone who realizes their limitations than a big government junkie who proposes endless government interventions into the economy when she clearly has no idea what she is doing. A review of her recent proposals on the mortgage crisis demonstrates this. Obama certainly isn’t an economist either, but I have far more confidence that Obama, and his advisers, are on the right track with regards to the economy. His ideas can also be sold to moderates, while those of Hillary Clinton will not go over well.
The DNC refers claims McCain will be “a President we just can’t trust.” If the election comes down to a choice of Hillary Clinton or John McCain on trust, my bet is that McCain will win that one without difficulty. John McCain might not be the straight talker he bills himself as, but few in politics match Hillary Clinton for the ease with which she can tell a lie.
Both Democratic candidates are clearly preferable over McCain with regards to abortion rights, and Factcheck.org does agree that this is a rare area where the DNC attacks are on the mark. The problem is that beyond abortion rights I cannot think of many other good reasons to vote for Clinton, while there are far too many reasons not to vote for her. If the Democrats want to win in 2008, the first thing they need to do is nominate a candidate worth voting for.
I completely agree with you. As I have mentioned on my blog, Hillary misrepresented Obama’s track record on reproductive rights that turned out to be absolutely false. This only reinforces the notion that she would do anything she can to get elected and undermine her credibility.
Hillary against Mccain would fail. Even on the really, really unlikely chance Huckabee is the nominee she wouldn’t do well. Even though he is wrong on so many issues, he comes across as genuine. Hillary — not so much.
Yes, Clinton has misrepresented Obama’s position on abortion rights. She’s also misrepresented his position on Social Security, Iraq, responding to the mortgage crisis, and distorted the meaning of his present votes in the Illinois legislature.
Hillary going up against Huckabee would be interesting. Hillary would win on the issues but Huckabee would win on character. In a general election battle like that I might reluctantly vote for Clinton but my money would be on Huckabee winning.