I don't really believe Hillary when she says that she'll run a national security race vs. McCain ... I mean, Hillary is many things, stupid is not one of them, and running a campaign on McCain's strength (and the only thing Republicans agree on anymore) would be remarkably dumb.

It doesn't matter who we nominate, the mantra this fall will be the same as '92 ... it's the economy, stupid.   John McCain admits he knows nothing about it ... he tends to lose Republicans when he talks about the economy and Democrats and Indies will reflexively distrust solutions from the party that got us into this mess.

Quite honestly, McCain doesn't scare me at all ... I think we've drawn the easiest candidate to beat in the GOP field, he has nowhere to go but down.  The economy is bad now and will look a lot worse in November ... we're picking the next President in the Democratic primaries.

I don't know on what planet "experience is a liability" sells.

It is for this reason that I do not support Obama.

The suggestion that you can lead more effectively because you have no leadership experience is absurd.

A Hillary/McCain/Nader election worries me.  I know Clinton supporters think she is a shoo-in to win the election, but i have a hard time seeing it in that scenario.

I don't know what Hillary's strategy against McCain is, but I suspect it will have more to do with domestic policy. Many long-time Iraq war opponents misunderstand how most voters view the war, that of the Republican candidates McCain is most popular among war opponents is a mystery to them.

I seriously doubt Clinton will run a national security focused campaign. Yes, Iraq will have to be an issue, but if Clinton is smart (and she is), it will be tying the war into the tanking US economy, neatly undercutting McCain's strongest talking point by linking it with his weakest.

McCain's economic credentials are terrible, and Clinton's are very good, having been linked with the surplus years of Bill's presidency and a major rebound in New York state during her Senate years. Not that she was a major part of either boons, but she was part of the crew when it happened, and that makes it a part of her credibility.

McCain will talk about fighting terrorists abroad, and Clinton will point out that it is impossible to do so effectively when you're bankrupt at home. McCain's economic plans weaken the US' ability to provide national security. That's the narrative you take.

Clinton may not be a "shoo-in," but she's not carrying the Rezco scandal liability that the GOP would certainly expand upon IF Obama was able to capture our party's nomination. Sure, there will be bombs hurled her way during the presidential campaign, but they are bombs which can be dealt with. What if Tony Rezco decides to "sing?" What if Rezco's middle east multi-millionaire associates decide to use their knowlege of the Obama/Rezco dealings as leverage in the future? It's now a two-candidate race and because of his association with this pig of a man (Rezco), Obama is a liability which the Democratic Party cannot afford to carry. We've dealt with enough scandals in our party without having to carry the burden of Obama's friendship with this unscrupulous character.

I do not believe this election will be about national security.  Even the GOP voters in the Florida primary saw the economy as far and away the #1 issue, and that will not change.

By the same token, I don't think Obama is hitting the right note here.  Democratic voters don't care very much about national security this year, and the question on their minds is not "Which candidate can challenge John McCain on national security?"  They want to know who will be the best problem-solver for the economy.

If you read some of the conservative blogs you find that, in fact, they think McCain is a closet liberal.

Hmmmm ...

It's called clarity. If you have two candidates who are similar, just right of center, which will America choose?

What we get with Obama vs. McCain is clarity. One for the war and one against, not one for this war and one "kind of sort of against it, depending on how the polls look today".

"my greatest foreign policy experience was when I was young living overseas as a child"

with

"I commanded a navy ship in battle", "I've dealt with F.P. for over 25 years in one capacity or another"
------------------------------
also...

I can 100% guarantee the War in Iraq will win votes for McCain against either Hillary or Obama.

He has been consistent. He's been indepedent . He's been critical of Bush when Bush was "wrong"
He's been supportive of Bush when he was "right".

The fact is the American people support the Iraq war in principle but felt it was mismanaged.  McCain will make the case that Obama is too inexperienced.

The swift boaters will make the case that he is dangerous and unelectable.

That's why we need Hillary. Not because she'll win the NS argument but she will lose it by less, while attacking McCain and the Republicans.

The point Obama is missing is that she would be using whatever equivalent experience she feels she has with McCain to neutralize him on that issue, and then best him on all the other issues.  Obama cannot win against McCain on national security - if he really wants to debate McCain on that, he will lose, no matter who was right about the war at the start (and did not have to take a stand that mattered).

is such a mirage.  People don't realize the full extent to which the msm has given obama a pass.

On so many issues he has been allowed to give 1 sentence answers without follow-up.

You've never heard him give interviews where you get the feeling he "knows" what he's saying as opposed to memorized his positions.

This is totally distinct from Clinton and Mccain.

They are primary actors, not reacting to their staffs.

Maybe now that the debates are 1 on 1. Obama won't be able to hide as easily.  But the media is amazing in giving him a chance.

Look at Resko.  No one challenged him on his answers but in a most polite way.

Obama can be as oratorical as he wants.  Bottom line: he will never win the "Commander-in-chief" argument against McCain.

She is saying she is NOT VULNERABLE on national security and thus can win on other issues - especially the economy.

Obama's turn of that is smart politics but that does not mean bloggers should repeat it as if it were true.

I just want to take a second to point something out. I'm from Arizona originally. In 2006, several Arizona congressional seats flipped to the Democratic party. I suspect Clinton would lose Arizona badly in a GE against McCain, and maybe cede the state altogether. Whereas Obama would most at least campaign there and put up a good fight. If Clinton is the nominee and does indeed lose AZ, at least one of those Dem seats would probably go back into Republican hands. And this is a scenario we could see playing out in red states across the country, not just in McCain's home state. I implore my fellow Dems to please at least think about this possibility when deciding between Clinton and Obama.

Hillary will tear McCain appart on domestic issues: the economy, healthcare, education, the environment, and so on, in a way Obama simply can't becuase his message is so much more broad. On national security Hillary will do her best to negate McCain's advantage, though he will have an advantage.

For Obama his strenghth will be change, the outsider vs the insider, experience vs Judgement and so on.  But Obama on National security would be in a conciderable deficit. If another crisis comes up you better believe Republicans will run with: War Hero vs Community organizer. In any case against McCain it will be won on domestic issues, and by not seeding too much of an advantage on foreign policy, and Hillary is better on both counts.

The campaign that Obama would run against McCain would probably be pretty similar to the one he is running now in the primaries.  Look at that excerpt, Obama has already said all that in the primary campaign.  Obama's message has been very consistent.  It is just a matter of which portions of it are emphasized.

"We know that Hillary Clinton's strategy for running against John McCain is to play up what she has in common with him -- experience, especially on national security matters..."

When did she announce her strategy against McCain? I didn't hear it. Please enlighten me. Hillary is too smart to fall for that trap. I think we need to let Hillary speak for herself. And Bill Clinton needs to shut up a bit.

On Iraq:

Hillary - I would like to end war in Iraq, but make sure we plan it properly.

McCain - Bush didn't fight the war in Iraq the right way.  We should double the troops, but other then that 100% with Bush.  We should stay in Iraq indefinitely.

Public - 70% want us out if Iraq, but not too hastily.

Sounds to me like Hillary is on the side of majority.

The only time McCain makes any sense is when he is in front of a partisan town hall.  To general public his positions will be totally out of whack and I am sure Hillary will have no problems with him.

Why not just cut through the clutter: We don't have to guess anymore. We have actual votes from millions of voters in the fourth largest state in the country.

Whoever wins Florida wins the general election:

Clinton: 857,208
McCain: 693,508
Romney: 598,188
Obama: 569,041

Hillary's 'Experience' claim won't work against McCain. She loses that argument.

As a man who is also a Democrat, I would rather roll the dice with Hillary in the GE rather than hoping Obama could win.

As I see it,apart from the War, there will be 2 main issues in the back of voters minds-

1)Roe V Wade risk to women if McCain wins and
  one of the SCt justices dies--This is crucial

2)Domestic Economy

Like it or not, the issue of "Experience" WILL become front and centre by November due to economic risk as well as terrorism risk--My hunch is that Obama would be crucified if he was our nominee--this is simply TOO dicy a time to take a flyer on the unknown

I also think that HRC will win a greater % of the Women's vote than might be currently imagined

fwiw-I happened to be reading the 2008 Astrp Forecast put out by Ray Merriman in mid Dec--He went through all the astro aspects in eveyone's chart re November and came to the conclusion that only McCain and HRC's charts were favourable--Obama's was not for eg.

His astro projection is that its HRC vs McCain and that HRC wins in a squeaker that is right up there with Bush/Gore result as to the definition of 'squeaker'

Interesting that Clinton has based her candidacy on experience and ready to lead on day one, and now looks to be going up against the 70+ ex-POW war hero McCain. She better pray that things stay relatively quiet on the international from, because she clearly wins if "it's the economy, stupid", but in any other scenario, I think the going gets pretty tough for her.

Todd you're being a bit presumptous in deciding "how' Clinton is going to run against McCain. Why don't we get the primary out of the way and then leave it up to her. As for the supposed experience argument I was under the impression Obama claims he has as much as her.  

Tony Rezko. Game over. Welcome, President McCain.

The media loves McCain even more than Obama. Without the media accommodating and amplifying Obama's every whiny hissy fit he is toast. Hillary doesn't need the media's blessing to win.

The primaries will tell us what we need to know about this argument, IMO.  If Obama can't sell it about Clinton, it has no chance of working against McCain, who the press loves.

have a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress or a Republican President and a Republican Congress.  Look what happened between 1993-1994 and 2001-2006.  

I sense a lot of anxiety and with some reason on the Rs presumptive nominee.  So let me delineate some thoughts.
1- It is way to early to predict how McCain will perform against either Hillary or Obama. McCain got the equivalent of a convention bump and leads Obama by 6 in Rasmussen. The generic congressional ballot by the same pollster has Ds leading by 5 which tells me that Rasmussen is oversampling Rs a tad. Both Obama and Hillary are bringing in new voters that are not tallied in the polling models.  
2- With apologies to Sommersby, it is my earnest opinion that the media can swing 2.5 pts from one side to the other (afterall, Gore did receive more votes than Bush). This number is substantial but not determinative.
3- McCain will be trashed and will be hurt by it. It is possible that he will literally implode, harming himself even more.
4-McCain may perish, he is after all, the oldest candidate and not of good health.
5-A Clinton/Obama ticket would be formidable.
6-Obama is the most electable D because of the inchoate Hillary hatred.  Conservatives will stay home and not vote if Obama is the candidate instead of supporting a tax increase, pro-immigration, pro-gay, soft on life (abortion), campaign reform; anti-torture and too compromising with the Ds on many issues unlike the current occupant. McCain would need Ds legislators because of the Rs legislator's hatred of the man (with reason).
7-Iraq: bad position for McCain.
8- Electoral College: overall favorable to Ds.                    

I think Hillary will bring in new voters most people don't expect and that is a lot of Republican women. I only have anecdotal evidence among the women I personally know but several life-long R's have told me they'll vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination (then they make sure to insist that the conversation is confidential because they don't want their husbands to know!)

McCain has one intrinsic weakness which he can do little to ameliorate, he would be the oldest president in US history.  Wait 'till his VP selection comes up and we will be discussing nothing else for a week.