missing text image: sites/all/themes/obs_2007/img/reply.gif
Anonymous (not verified) says:
Does anyone who's thrashing the Obama campaign pay attention to Sen. Clinton's unfavorables? They're HUGE for a candidate who's never run for an executive seat. Nothing, Nothing, NOTHING unites the conservatives quite like having the Clintons to fight against. (And when you take a look at reports and polls all across the country, they'll tell you the exact same thing.)
This doesn't mean Sen. Clinton isn't a good candidate.
It doesn't change the fact that Sen. Clinton qualified to be president.
It just means Sen. Clinton would lose. (This isn't just media hype. The national polls relating to a McCain vs. Clinton election are virtually unchanged since 2000, before anyone had even heard of Barack Obama).
The Democratic Party has sent two well established, policy-specific, bright, experienced candidates as their nominees to national office for two straight elections.
Neither of them won.
Obama has consistently posted better numbers against McCain than Clinton.
Since that's whom the Democrats have to beat, why shouldn't he be the candidate?
The iron rule of politics remains the same: Those who do not win do not govern.
I'd like to govern in 2009.
As for the inevitable bashing this is likely to earn me, I ask that everyone do me a small favor: Remember this article if and (likely) when Sen. Clinton wins the nomination and loses the general election. It will be the first in an incredibly long list of I-told-you-so's written from individuals all across the political spectrum.
Does anyone who's thrashing the Obama campaign pay attention to Sen. Clinton's unfavorables? They're HUGE for a candidate who's never run for an executive seat. Nothing, Nothing, NOTHING unites the conservatives quite like having the Clintons to fight against. (And when you take a look at reports and polls all across the country, they'll tell you the exact same thing.)
This doesn't mean Sen. Clinton isn't a good candidate.
It doesn't change the fact that Sen. Clinton qualified to be president.
It just means Sen. Clinton would lose. (This isn't just media hype. The national polls relating to a McCain vs. Clinton election are virtually unchanged since 2000, before anyone had even heard of Barack Obama).
The Democratic Party has sent two well established, policy-specific, bright, experienced candidates as their nominees to national office for two straight elections.
Neither of them won.
Obama has consistently posted better numbers against McCain than Clinton.
Since that's whom the Democrats have to beat, why shouldn't he be the candidate?
The iron rule of politics remains the same: Those who do not win do not govern.
I'd like to govern in 2009.
As for the inevitable bashing this is likely to earn me, I ask that everyone do me a small favor: Remember this article if and (likely) when Sen. Clinton wins the nomination and loses the general election. It will be the first in an incredibly long list of I-told-you-so's written from individuals all across the political spectrum.