Clinton Memo: Why We're Best Positioned To Take On McCain

Read it and tell me -- do you think Clinton or Obama would be a better candidate against JSM?

To: Interested Parties

From: Mark Penn, Chief Strategist

Date: Saturday, February 2, 2008

Re: Hillary is the Democrat to Beat McCain

If John McCain becomes the Republican nominee, Hillary is the Democrat who can beat him -- because she has the strength and experience a president needs to get America on the right course and to defend it against future threats. She is the hands-on leader that America needs as we slip into a worsening economic crisis. Her ability to be both a strong commander-in-chief and steward of the economy are what make her the favorite against Sen. McCain.

Sen. Obama has been telling voters that he is the one to beat Sen. McCain because he gave a speech against the war in 2002 and because he is currently attracting independent voters. But those arguments don’t hold up to current polling, to history or to what is likely to happen in a general election.

First, there is no support to Sen. Obama’s assertion that his 2002 speech makes him a stronger choice in a general election. Recent history shows that voters look to who they believe can end a war and protect us against future wars. No one believes that if Hillary had been president she would have started the war. In fact, Hillary is backed by prominent anti-war leaders because they believe she is uniquely able to end the war responsibly.

Based on recent polls, there is nothing to support Sen. Obama's arguments about his prospective performance against Sen. McCain – both Sen. Obama and Hillary start off within the margin of error against Sen. McCain.Yesterday's Fox poll showed both in a statistical tie with Sen. McCain And Hillary's negatives are fully factored in, whereas the same cannot be said of Sen. Obama because he is – by his own admission - not as well known.

Sen. Obama’s support among independents comes from Democratic-leaning independents, voters who are likely to back the eventual Democratic nominee. He has no overall advantage in the polls against Sen. McCain. But such voters have very little information about Sen. Obama. And once the Republican machine begins to methodically attack him, he will lose independent support.

So in a head to head against Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama has no advantage with swing voters.
The 2004 election was determined by two key groups – women concerned about security and Latinos – and against Sen. McCain those groups could again prove decisive. President Bush won 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004 and Sen. McCain, unlike other Republicans, has been supportive of immigration reform. These are two groups that enthusiastically support Hillary.

As voters look to the future, they will be looking at who can put the country on the right path and who can defend it against future threats. While Hillary is seen as strong on defense and has served on the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Obama has no record on these national security issues that would again be front and center.

So if Sen. McCain is the nominee, Hillary is the one well-positioned to beat him. Already well vetted, she is ready to stand up to Sen. McCain on national security and put together a winning coalition of voters that will take back the White House.

Comments

Cute spin, wishful thinking. Obama is a stronger candidate than Clinton, his crossover appeal to (some) Republicans is well-documented.

Posted by bbartlog | February 2, 2008 3:21 PM

I'm an Obama supporter, and, you'll be shocked to know, I don't find Penn's memo at all persuasive.

In addition, I think one important point that is overlooked in the whole electability argument is the dynasty issue.

There have been Bushes or Clintons in the White House since 1988, the entire voting life of anyone under 40. The Obama campaign implicitly hits on this with the "change" theme, but they have been careful not to be too explicit about it, because lumping the Clintons together with the Bushes is dangerous in a Democratic primary.

But you can bet in the general election you will hear a LOT more about it. As a member of the younger generation, I find it very disturbing that Bush inherited the Presidency from his father, and I find it equally disturbing that Clinton is basically trying to inherit the Presidency from her husband. Give someone else a chance!

Posted by dart | February 2, 2008 3:21 PM

Actually the FOX poll had Obama ahead by 1 and Clinton down by 1 point against McCain. It's still within the margin of error....

Also, one could argue that the 2004 election hinged on the fact that despite large democratic margins in cities, republicans overwhelmingly carried rural America. Obama has done much better than Clinton in these areas in the primaries so far and is poised to win the largely rural states on Tuesday.

Posted by yeah... | February 2, 2008 3:21 PM

He may be right, but I wonder how many other erstwhile Democratic voters there are who will vote for McCain over Senator Clinton without a second thought. Nothing about the way she's run her campaign -- the people she's chosen, the strategy and persona of the week, the dishonest attacks she's made on her opponents, the multiple efforts to game the system (I live in Michigan), the tendency to trim her views to the prevailing winds -- make me think she'd be anything but a disaster as President. Hopefully, we'll never find out.

Posted by Kevin Miller | February 2, 2008 3:24 PM

First of all there is no gaurantee that it will be McCain. I don't think it is better than an 50/50 chance at the moment. Secondly, Hillary is by far the best candidate to oppose any Republican nominee. Obama got caught in ANOTHER OUTRIGHT LIE today by the N.Y. Times regarding a nuclear power protection bill HE ALLEGEDLY PASSED.
They also pointed out the both he and Adoph Hitler Axelrod are on the hook big time to nuclear power interests.

It is borderline corruption not far removed from Obama's long time relationship with the Chicago Arab Political Terror Cell which includes Antoin Rezko, Ali Ata, Abdulmuhamid Chaim, Milorad Blagejovich, and a corrupt Iraqi billionaire.

Combine that with the war crime activities of his freind, cousin, and confidante, Raila Odinga in Kenya, along with the Black Supremist views of his longtime mentor Jeremiah Wright Jr, and his freind Nation of Islam leader Louis (X) Farrakhan, and the Republicans will eat him alive.

Obama doesn't think well in his feet without a script and a teleprompter, and whichever Rep nominee emerges will "take him to school" in any debate.

Thanks to the former mayor of Vermont, Howdy Doody Dean, the DNC is broke, two major states have had their voters alienated, and Democratic voters are declining nation wide in comparison to Republicans. Hillary is the only one who gives the Dems a tinker's chance in the G.E.

Posted by robert ethan | February 2, 2008 3:31 PM

Based on polling, that memo is not persuasive.

Posted by dave | February 2, 2008 3:34 PM

I will apologize if this doesn't move all of you!

http://www.dipdive.com/

Posted by Reinaldo Hereford | February 2, 2008 3:35 PM

Her arguement for experience goes up in smoke against McCain. At the same time she can't argue change for either. She will be hard-pressed to argue against the Iraq War again Sen. McCain, with her vote on record and minimal foreign policy success (good will missions don't count). Middle of the road democrats/independennts don't fear McCain and might be willing to vote republican over Mrs. Clinton, as she is not respected by a large number of people. The Democrats are in danger of screwing up another election. Can we do better? Yes We Can.

Posted by LatinaForObama | February 2, 2008 3:35 PM

I will apologize if this doesn't move all of you!

http://www.dipdive.com/

Posted by Reinaldo Hereford | February 2, 2008 3:35 PM

C'mon!! This is Mark Penn we are reading. He has as much credibility as if Dumbya Bush was handicapping the race. Obviously Obama is the better general election candidate (for many reasons but the first and quite compelling reason IS the conservative support he has received, via endorsements or "kind words." Hillary has not. Not to say Obama is going to win because the Democratic party has a history of shooting itself in the foot but on any objective criteria, Obama is clearly the more formidable general election candidate.

Posted by carlos | February 2, 2008 3:39 PM

She is the John Kerry of 2008 and that memo proves it.

The fact is the only way the democratic party can win on Iraq is by drawing clear and distinct contrasts between the candidates: HRC can not do this. She will be painted a flip-flopper. She will be painted as indecisive on the war. She will be made to look weak.

And the last debate showed why, clearly. She has no good answer to her Iraq war vote.

Obama has a strong economic plan that favors the middle class, he has proven he can attract independents. Something the HRC campaign has illustrated just now in this memo. HRC can not.

If it is Clinton v. McCain: McCain will win.

Posted by Rhoda | February 2, 2008 3:39 PM

C'mon!! This is Mark Penn we are reading. He has as much credibility as if Dumbya Bush was handicapping the race. Obviously Obama is the better general election candidate (for many reasons but the first and quite compelling reason IS the conservative support he has received, via endorsements or "kind words." Hillary has not. Not to say Obama is going to win because the Democratic party has a history of shooting itself in the foot but on any objective criteria, Obama is clearly the more formidable general election candidate.

Posted by carlos | February 2, 2008 3:40 PM

McCain would slap Billary's 35 year crap in to the trash. Secondly she would lose Indy's to McCain... Sorry Billary they just don't like you...

Posted by Ann | February 2, 2008 3:41 PM

McCain would slap Billary's 35 year crap in to the trash. Secondly she would lose Indy's to McCain... Sorry Billary they just don't like you...

Posted by Ann | February 2, 2008 3:42 PM

I actually agree with the memo from Penn. I think on the 'other side' of a Primary, Hillary is the stronger candidate. Voters haven't seen (yet) how strong Obama would be against the GOP. Clinton is tested. Obama has already been named THE most liberal US Senator and the GOP will paint him as THE most inexperienced candidate EVER. I think he'd make a great VP, but I fear that if he is the nominee, we can kiss the white house goodbye in 08.

Posted by D.Campbell | February 2, 2008 3:45 PM

Her experience argument -- in so far as she has one -- does go absolutely nowhere against McCain. So her most obvious (only?) advantage in a Democratic primary evaporates instantly.

Penn is kidding himself, or ignoring his exits and all sorts of ancedotal evidence, if he thinks that every independent willing to turnout to vote for Obama will do the same for Hillary Clinton. He's wrong. There are people who turned out in Iowa, for example, who powered Obama to a victory that Clinton could not dream of tapping no matter how many new sliced and diced voter subsects Penn creates.

He probably has a point that no poll shows either candidate with breathing space from McCain ... but I think this speaks to McCain's potency more so than it speaks to a weakness in Obama. (He selectively ignores that Obama outpolls him slightly with McCain ... and brings up the number of undecides, but that's to be expected.)

There's also more of this insidious "Obama has not been vetted" theme implied here ... and while they may be true (today's nuclear article in the NY Times is interesting, if not very damning) it's a joke to say that the Clintons have been fully vetted. The Borat-gate highlighted in this week's New York Times is the tip of the iceberg and, more so than today's Obama piece, speaks to a real problem that will exist if the Clintons are in office again. Bill is free to buck-rake all he wants, but if he did this kind of stuff while his wife was president it would undoubtedly mess up foreign policy more often than not.

Anyway ... Penn and Plouffe both obfuscate in memos; there's perhaps slightly less to believe in this one than others.

Posted by Flip | February 2, 2008 3:52 PM

Hillary is the best candidate to beat McCain and be one of the best president's this country has had in a very long time.

Posted by Carl | February 2, 2008 3:54 PM

Hmmmm, Mark Penn speaks with conviction, at least until tomorrow when there will be other polls disproving what he's spinning and he'll pivot instantaneously into a new tack. This smarmy, sweaty embodiment of everything that's wrong with politics in 2008 has no more credibility about this race than Cheney has about Iraq. I need a shower after reading anything he writes.

Posted by TrueBlue | February 2, 2008 3:55 PM

To: Robert Ethan

The American public is sick and tired of the stuff that your post is full of, which is why Clinton wouldn't have a prayer against McCain.

Posted by TheUnknownStuntman | February 2, 2008 4:04 PM

I find it amazing that her main argument for defeating any Republican is that she has been "vetted". Just yesterday there were two breaking stories regarding her passive approach to labor unions when she was at WalMart and her and her husbands undermining of government policies with the mining deal in Kazhakstan (Yes...I do hold her accountable for that also).

In addition, there are still thousands of papers Bill has kept guarded that I am sure the Republicans will out. Who knows what is in them, but its enough to challenge her claim that she is vetted.

My biggest indication of who will beat the Republicans come from the Republicans themselves...they fear Obama most.

Posted by Ron Roley | February 2, 2008 4:06 PM

Sorry about the earlier post. There's a sweaty little troll who steals my name sometimes and posts the most unbelievable steaming pigshit. Just ignore him/her/it please.

Posted by robert ethan | February 2, 2008 4:06 PM

He's *got* to be kidding:

- Obama has by *far* the greatest appeal to Independents and even Republicans
- Hillary will not only fail to win the vote of Independents/Republicans, she will also lose the vote of many Democrats. Like me. I'm a lifelong democrat, but if the choice is Hillary or McCain, I will vote for McCain.
- Her supposed strengths that he lists above are not so, and they play right into McCains actual strengths. Hillary better prepared to be commander in chief than McCain? No. Pure and simple: No.

In summary, I think that far from being the candidate best suited to beat McCain, Hillary is the only candidate who would lose this historic opportunity for Democrats to take back the White House.

And it would be a good thing, too.

Posted by Eduardo | February 2, 2008 4:09 PM

The real question with Hillary is why she repulses so many principled and intelligent Democrats. I can't see how she would appeal to any Republican. Added to that the prospect of Bill defiling the White House again, and I can't imagine a worse or less credible candidate.

Posted by zilifant | February 2, 2008 4:09 PM

As someone who has been very active in lots of presidential campaigns, I can't imagine myself working at all for HRC's election. And I think that turnout and effort from Dem base voters would be down if she were the nominee.

Posted by Sue | February 2, 2008 4:16 PM

Not sure--saw Penn's name in the memo, threw up a bit in my mouth, and decided not to read it.

Posted by JEM | February 2, 2008 4:17 PM

The Republicans have always wanted Hillary Clinton to win the nomination because she carries immense liabilities (righfully so or not) -- including her husband as has become increasingly evident. I think the memo understates these liablities.

Posted by Eric | February 2, 2008 4:32 PM

Obama is very inspirational. He is a motivational speaker. He has very good writers. But there are no specifics when he talks.

The republicans will eat him alive! He has trouble defending his record when he is questioned. Hillary has the best chance to defeat the republicans.

With the dynasty question, how come Americans are now bringing that question up? Where were you when Bush stole the election in 2000 and when the American poeple re-elected him in 2004. It is funny Americans had no problem with the the Bush dynasty but are all of a sudden opposed to a Clinton dynasty. Ask yourself...Are you better off now or back when the first clinton was president? If Barack wins, he will be eaten alive by the republicans.

We need a Clinton/Obama ticket and the dems control for 16 years.

Posted by Jinglesnbells | February 2, 2008 4:34 PM

I don't understand why Hillary Clinton is bragging about 35 years experience. During the last debate she outlined that experience and I waited to hear something that was relative to being the president of the US. I heard a lot of social work with children. Maybe she's trying to hint that during her husband's tenure, she was actually the one making the decisions for him.
Also, how can she possibly think that she is the best person to go up against McCain with all of the baggage she and her husband are carrying from his tenure in the White House (including Monica),-- not to mention the lies and flip-flops she has done on her positions and the poor judgement in supporting the war. She has yet to admit any wrong. This behavior is similar to what we are dealing with presently with Bush. How can one trust a highly ambitious person who will sell her soul for a vote? McCain will eat her alive!

Posted by Annette Nunnally | February 2, 2008 4:47 PM

when you're in a crisis, and america IS really in a crisis now, you don't pick someone who just gives hope. i'd pick someone who can do the job. that would be clinton or mccain. like it or not, obama's candidacy is a fairy tale. mccain would simply say to him "what have you done?" and no independent voter would waste his vote on just hoping.

Posted by nonoy | February 2, 2008 4:49 PM

Obviously the Republicans base isn't too excited about McCain in the White House. But, if Hillary is the nominee that will certainly change. You can also feel the excitement in the Democratic Party because of the Obama campaign. If he is nominated the turnout should be huge. There are many, many people that will be very disappointed if Hillary wins and turnout will be affected.

I think the electability issue is obvious to anyone with an open mind. I'm sure its possible that Hillary could beat McCain, but it would almost certainly be another nail-biter, so why take the chance?

Posted by Ron | February 2, 2008 4:50 PM

More corrupt camp donations for Obama! WHERES THE MEDIA??? We are sick of the media pushing obama down our throats! on Oct. 5, in the aftermath of federal bribery/extortion/conspiracy/other miscellaneous badness indictments of former Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill , Obama camp supporter and financial contributor to Presidential candidate Barrack Obama who desperately wants campaign cash from another, criminal or not, Again Obama camp has its hands full with other publically indicted bankrollers Rezko. Now Mr. Hill's campaign finance report shows donations on April 28, and federal campaign finance reports indicate Mr. Obama received donations in June 22 as well. The Obama camp couldn't immediately be reached for comment Friday…Of Couse, did axelrod loose his voice?
Obama's Relationship With Rezko Goes Back 17 Years. Obama Kept Contributions From Accused Fixer's (REZKO)Wife And Others ABCNews.com Analysis Shows the Campaign Still Hasn't Returned More Than $100,000 OBAMA LOOSES JOBS FOR LATINIOS!
**Ms. Obama, vice-president at the Univ Chicago Hosp, a hospital that charges uninsured minorities 5.4 times as much for drugs isn’t enough cold hearted corp experience. Plus she caused hundreds to loose their 11.hr jobs she said to be more efficient. 05, she was elected to the BOD Westchester-based TreeHouse Foods, for that, she received $12,000 and $33,000 from a subsidiary, in Nov announced closing its La Junta, Colo. plant, that claimed the jobs of 153 workers, most of them Hispanic, big blow to a rural town with only 9,500 residents. The jobs paid a starting wage of $11 an hour, good pay for the area. Companies that pay top execs like MICHELLE OBAMA tens of millions a year while squeezing the little guys off the production line destroying middle-class America. Also raises the question not about corporate values but about Mr. Obama's own values. Specifically, while Obama bashes Wal-Mart, why does his wife, Michelle, make $45,000 a year serving on the board of Chicago company that pays executives a very hefty amount of money while laying off mostly minority workers in economically deprived areas? The companys No. 1 customer is Wal-Mart???

In 2005, Texas-based Dean Foods Co. spun off its processed-food subsidiary into an independent company, Elected to BOD in June 6 Michelle Obama, receives $30,000 a year plus $1,500 per board or committee meeting she attends. That totaled $45,000 in 2005, according to Mr. Obama's Senate ethics disclosure. Ms. Obama got 7,500 stock

Posted by More corrupt camp donations for Obama | February 2, 2008 4:54 PM

Obama criticized again for going negative and misleading on Clinton
Does Sen. Obama think that using divisive GOP tactics is the way to bring the country together? Len Nichols of the New America Foundation said he is "personally outraged at Obama camps recent mailer attacking Clinton! Obama trying to stop health care for everyone! Once again He‘s caught in lies from the debate. Obama showed vindictiveness and lack of magnanimity after his victory SC. The first part of his victory speech was deeply unpleasant attack on the Clintons. No graciousness there. And how did he handle defeat in New Hampshire and Nevada? With a combination of denial, petulance and the launching of a successful campaign to persuade the American media that the Clintons were engaged in a campaign of lies about him and, even worse, in a campaign of surreptitious racism. Clinton pointed out, it's not enough to hope and demand change; you had to be able to define what change you want and had to be able to deliver it. It was Obama who introduced King into the debate. Hillarys words were being construed not just as disrespect but as hidden racism. Obama's people was briefing the media to create this impression. The consequence has been exactly what you would expect. In the Nevada caucus, blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama and non-blacks voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. In South Carolina, the black vote was 53 per cent of the total. Obama secured 80 per cent of it. That's the reason for his overwhelming victory there. He won only 23 per cent of the non-black vote. Contrast this to Iowa, where he won a large proportion of the white vote. It's a tragedy for Obama and entirely his own fault that this has happened. he became "the black candidate
Obama's most effective criticisms of Clinton, she voted for authorising the war, he opposed it from the start but (and this is crucially important) he had consistently opposed the war ever since. This story of consistent opposition over years was a "fairytale" the media had bought into.Obama has managed to persuade the media that this was a lie that he would correct. He hasn't corrected it, because he can't. He has not been consistent in the terms he set himself.
Obama supported Kerry for president, Kerry voted for war and continued to justify his support. Obama said that he did not want to cause Kerry embarrassment so he said that he, Obama, did not know how he would have voted. Isn't this the candidate who's about change, whose whole candidacy is based on a "different kind of politics"? Isn't this the candidate who says the country can no longer tolerate political spin, that lying in the name of political advantage is what's destroying the country? Yet on the very issue he identifies as the biggest moral issue facing America Obama effectively states that he was lying for political advantage.
Obama's calls for hope, for change. but hope to do what, to change to what? He hasn't said yet. He doesn't seem to know. He says that one of the high qualities of leadership is the ability to inspire by words, and he is right. It's a rare ability. But inspire to what end? It's a pity. He promised so much.

Posted by Sherri | February 2, 2008 4:56 PM

You The media, are pushing Obama, and Cain Mc Cain, only because you believe Mc cain can win Obama, you know a lot of whites are IN THE CLOSET racists! that why you are pushing Obama.

Posted by raul Blanco Sr | February 2, 2008 4:57 PM

You The media, are pushing Obama, and Cain Mc Cain, only because you believe Mc cain can win Obama, you know a lot of whites are IN THE CLOSET racists! that why you are pushing Obama.

Posted by raul Blanco Sr | February 2, 2008 4:57 PM

You The media, are pushing Obama, and Cain Mc Cain, only because you believe Mc cain can win Obama, you know a lot of whites are IN THE CLOSET racists! that why you are pushing Obama.

Posted by raul Blanco Sr | February 2, 2008 4:57 PM

You The media, are pushing Obama, and Cain Mc Cain, only because you believe Mc cain can win Obama, you know a lot of whites are IN THE CLOSET racists! that why you are pushing Obama.

Posted by raul Blanco Sr | February 2, 2008 4:57 PM

You The media, are pushing Obama, and Cain Mc Cain, only because you believe Mc cain can win Obama, you know a lot of whites are IN THE CLOSET racists! that why you are pushing Obama.

Posted by raul Blanco Sr | February 2, 2008 4:57 PM

Barack Obama and his fellow state senators considered more than 175 pieces of legislation on a frenetic day in March. Of those measures, Obama voted "present" 31 times! did not show up to vote in the senate often in his short time there, missed 130 votes! will not answer any reporter on how we would voted at the time. But his record after fact shows he supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home. He votes for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater. His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal!!!!Which if not suspended, still keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come? Obama when faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from the Bush administration or corporate lobbyists. Such as Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama voted with Republicans to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, increasing hardship for families. Obama voted for one of Bush's top priorities - expanding Nafta to South America - even as President Bush obstructed all the top Democratic priorities. Obama voted with Bush to make it harder for ordinary people to hold big corporations accountable when they do things like sell toxic toys, poisonous pet food, or just plain rip you off. Obama was the Senate's biggest Democratic advocate of subsidies for liquid coal, even though liquid coal produces twice the global warming pollution of the crude oil it's meant to replace (Obama "backed off" this position after being pummeled by environmentalists for several months, but still voted for increased subsidies, albeit with conditions)Obama, a Hamiltonian believer in free trade and supporters of globalization has lent his support to the "Hamilton Project formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other 'Wall Street Democrats' to counter populist rebellion against corporate tendencies within the Democratic Party. Obama provided assistance to pro-war candidates (such as Joe Lieberman). Obama voted for "business-friendly 'tort reform' bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation...from corporations!!! Obama considers single payer universal health care too socialist and has stated that he prefers voluntary solutions says peopel who dont have health care dont want it??? He has no clue whats goign on? VOTE FOR CLINTON

Posted by CLINTON 2008 | February 2, 2008 4:58 PM

There seems to be a certain "quality" to comments from Clinton supporters. Kind of a desperate, mean-spirited, Tanya Harding sort of quality.

Posted by Ron | February 2, 2008 5:00 PM

Well this is a nice fairly tail by Mr & Mrs Whitewater.

The Clintons raised $500 million for his library from all the criminals he pardoned on his way out of the white house. Maybe if she is elected she will return the White House Silver she stole.

Posted by Todd | February 2, 2008 5:03 PM

Keep Getting the Truth out about the Real Obama
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Advertisment
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday Hillary Clinton with an eight point lead in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. It’s now Clinton 45%, Obama 37%.

Posted by ColonelRay | February 2, 2008 5:04 PM

It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush ....

Cleaning up what? Cleaning up Monica Lewinsky, or cleaning up the messed war HRC authorized? If there is anything to clean up, it is more of the former than the later! There may even be another Monica to clean out this round. Give me a break: What a joke to defend a very inconsiderate, insensitive, hawkish dynastic ambition? Perhaps, Chelsea will later clean up after another a Bush daughter. And the cleaning up continues for God knows how long. Clintons or Bushes are not the only qualified people in America. Why shouldn't they show some understanding.

These issues will resurface in the general election. The GOP is waiting and hoping for DEM's free gift of HRC.

Posted by Jan | February 2, 2008 5:05 PM

What did we expect him to say? As an independent, I view this as nothing more than Clinton spin, say anything, do anything to win. The new "American way" established by too many years of Bush/Clinton soapbox drivel. And Americans are too lazy to dig for the real truth for themselves, and we do so at our own peril.

Posted by Robert Ball | February 2, 2008 5:07 PM

Wonderful spin by the Hillary Camp.
Does the camp forget about whitewater?
Does the camp forget Monica scandle?
Does the camp forget she voted for the authorization of the Irag war?
This is just some of the thing the camp has forgot about.

Posted by KEVIN NOVAK | February 2, 2008 5:07 PM

Barrack Hussein Obama. This man born into a muslim family, who now says it took him 25 years to become a christian, a man admitted to heavy drug use, a man related and who currently supports radical muslims like Odinaga or muslim criminals like Rezcko, a man not even raised in the United States, a man who supports killing babies, a man who supports treating women as second class citizens, a man who attends a racist church that despises all other races but black and supports a radical black muslim who has spouted hatred for 25 years, a man who cannot make his mind up on how to vote until he wets his finger and puts it in the air to see how the wind is blowing, a man who has never managed a business, never served in the military, frankly never even had a real job, a man who took money from a slumlord while poor blacks froze in the winter without any heat, a man who finally admitted last week that he is half-white while standing in Kansas of course, a man who supports gun owners rights while standing in front of crowd in Idaho, a man who says he supports drivers licenses for illegal aliens while standing in California, a man who supports legalizing marijuana while talking to groups like move-on.org, a man who can make comments about black men need to know how to dance and get away with it, a man who says he will even learn Spanish. But in reality a man who dishonors his father, his mother, his heritage, and who does not have the guts or the honor to wear a flag on his lapel while we are at war........This man, not a good patriot, not a good son, not a good person, not a good man.

Posted by ColonelRay | February 2, 2008 5:07 PM

Maybe someone can help me out here.

I keep hearing that Obama's opposition to the war is a "plus." Even though I agree with his position, I've always viewed it as a minus for the general election - because the Republicans are particularly good at defeating Democratic candidates by calling them pacifists.

Hillary's position is that she was ready to whip Saddam, but that Bush misled her. I think that plays better against the Republican scare tactics than Obama's consistent position.

Personally I think that Obama and Clinton are interchangable. They are both corporate dems, with the same "moderate" positions, and Clinton's baggage and gender will weigh her down as much as Obama's race. I don't get the Hillary/Bill bashing that has been out there in the media, and now has taken hold of many Obama supporters. I think the anti-Hillary bias is preventing Obama from being properly vetted by the primary process. Penn is right when he says that Obama's negatives are as high as they will be eventually - the longer a candidate is out being vetted and attacked, the higher they will go. Hillary's are perhaps high as they will ever be.

Posted by Christine | February 2, 2008 5:08 PM

"No one believes that if Hillary had been president she would have started the war."

Excuse me? The president is not the only person in a position of power. She had a resolution in front of her in the Senate. She was and is one of the leaders of the Democratic party, well positioned to insist on a REAL debate over this thing. That's what the senate does. Oh wait, she was trying to appear tough like the rest of the Democrats because they were afraid the country went bonkers over September 11th. Understandable, but Obama had no reservations speaking out against the war. He even won a US Senate seat shortly after risking attack on his patriotism.
This is not the only capitulation from Hillary, her husband, or Democrats. Actions should have consequences, shouldn't they?

A side note: At this point, I'm not sure what would unify the Republicans more -- Hillary Clinton, or Mark Penn's body of press release creative writing.

Posted by comatose | February 2, 2008 5:11 PM

It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush ....

Cleaning up what? Cleaning up Monica Lewinsky, or cleaning up the messed war HRC authorized? If there is anything to clean up, it is more of the former than the later! There may even be another Monica to clean out this round. Give me a break: What a joke to defend a very inconsiderate, insensitive, hawkish dynastic ambition? Perhaps, Chelsea will later clean up after another a Bush daughter. And the cleaning up continues for God knows how long. Clintons or Bushes are not the only qualified people in America. Why shouldn't they show some understanding.

These issues will resurface in the general election. The GOP is waiting and hoping for DEM's free gift of HRC.

Posted by Jan | February 2, 2008 5:13 PM

We dont need to go back to the 90s
the future is now

Obama is now

Clinton is the past with a wonderful spin team.
they follow the obama camp lead

first obama from the start is talking change.
then she jumps all over it and starts using it.

Then obame says yes we can, now I just see on tv her supporters and her chanting yes we can.

does she ever thing of anything original or does see jump on what is working.

Jump off Obama and stop running off you husbands name.
go Obama.

Posted by Obama supporter | February 2, 2008 5:14 PM

So everyone think McCain is the one to beat? When everyone starts telling the truth about him and what a truly nasty person he is they'll think twice. To those who want to make so much of Clinton's affair, pay attention to McCain's past. Check it here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
A few highlights of his wonderful life:
He finished near the bottom of his graduating class in 1958, he was fifth from the bottom in class rank

He was a major player in the Keating Five scandal of the 1980s

Regarding his first marriage: McCain had extramarital affairs, and he would later say, "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine." His wife Carol would later echo those sentiments, saying "I attribute [the breakup of our marriage] more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else.

During that time his wife was undergoing multiple surgeries due to an automobile accident.

The man also has a quick and and nasty temper and is way too old for the job. He should retire gracefully before he is completley exposed.

Posted by Shirley | February 2, 2008 5:14 PM

It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush ....

Cleaning up what? Cleaning up Alberto Gonzalez, or cleaning up the messed Iraq war? If there is anything to clean up, it is even more of the latter! There may even be another Scooter Libby to clean out this round. Give me a break: What a reality to defend a very considerate, sensitive, magnanimous ambition? We hope perhaps, Chelsea will later clean up after another a Bush daughter. And the cleaning up continues for God knows how long Bushes and the like are around. Clintons or Bushes are not the only qualified people in America. Why shouldn't they show some understanding.

These issues will resurface in the general election. The DEM is waiting and hoping for GOP's free gift of JMcC.

Posted by Janice D | February 2, 2008 5:18 PM

Lets see...the republican attack machine will go after Obama and leave HRC alone. I guess because all the dirt to be had has been had. I think he calls it "vetted".

Right Mark. I've got a load for you from the non-feeding end of a horse.

With HRC they have both Hillary AND Bill to go after.

Posted by Brian | February 2, 2008 5:18 PM

Sherri,

Len Nichols? Isn't that the guy who said the picture of a couple at their kitchen table was just like the Nazis marching in Skokie? And how was the mailer a "smear?" Because the truth is equal to mud for Hillary?

Sorry, couldn't get through the rest of your screed. If you're that willing to distort a truthful mailer, then you lose credibility for anything else you have to say.

Posted by texasdem | February 2, 2008 5:21 PM

The next president must be ready on Day 1 to restore the nation and its people. It will be a long slog. The next president must be up to it.

Obama is whistling an optimistic tune, though so far, when compared to his main rivals, it has the substance and specifics of a chewing gum ad jingle.

Since joining the Senate in 2001, she displayed a knack for getting things done across party lines, just the opposite of what her critics expected.

Since joining the Senate in 2001, she displayed a knack for getting things done across party lines, just the opposite of what her critics expected.

The country would be well served if her plans for tax fairness and universal health care were accomplished in the same competent manner.

Hillary Clinton is a lightning rod. Polls show that she polarizes a segment of the country. Anyone who witnessed Bill Clinton's two terms in office doesn't need a poll to understand that the first lady came under a well-funded and generally unfair assault by smear artists who knew which buttons to push on her natural enemies, often conservative white males. Courtesy- Anniston Star

Lightening rods make changes while chewing jingle only makes mess on your shoes.

Hilary 2008

Posted by DR | February 2, 2008 5:22 PM

i would vote McCain if obama gets nomination so its a 2 way street Obama fans say the same thing about Hillary so that argument is bogus

Posted by jeff | February 2, 2008 5:25 PM

I'll be voting for Senator Hillary R. Clinton in Tuesday's Democratic primary in Connecticut. I'm voting for her because I'm a proud McCain Democrat and know that Hurricane McCain can beat her like a drum in November!

Posted by MVD | February 2, 2008 5:34 PM

Oh, bother...this is just spin and wishful thinking. Talk about a 'fairy tale!'

I love the line about how HRC's negatives are already factored in as a good thing--nothing like admitting your candidate has a big group of people that can't stand her and won't vote for her under any circumstances. The idea that Obama's negatives will somehow surface later is preposterous; everywhere he campaigns his likability just goes up and up and up. And finally, as others have already articulated, Obama has much, much more cross-over appeal. He will pull Independents and disfranchised Republicans.

HRC's team is planning for a repeat of the elections of 2000 and 2004, albeit with a narrow Dem win this time. Is that any way to lead the country through needed change? It is not. The new president will need a bigger mandate, a bigger general victory. And Obama is the only one who can do it, period.

Posted by jcfinsf | February 2, 2008 5:35 PM

The arguement about Obama bring out more voters in general election is one-sided.

Young people are coming out to vote. But they are not all voting for Obama. Some of them are not even voting for any democratic candidates. How certain are we that they will all come out to vote for Obama in general election after the Republican attack machine complete its job on Obama?

Minority are not all for Obama either. I know from first hand experience that Hillary is well liked in Asian & Hispanic communities.

I am a registered Republican woman. I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. If Obama wins, I will vote for the Republican nominee. And I know there are a lot of women like me. Whatever you want to label me, I am proud of Hillary's talent and achievements. I want her to be my president.

The assumption that only Obama will get more votes in general election may not be correct. Hillary has advantages, too.

Posted by tt88 | February 2, 2008 5:36 PM

Hilary or Obama would easily beat any Republican put up. Can you imagine a Presidential race in 2008 where two candidates voted for George Bush two times and two didn't. Wow! Bushes rating at 30% and 70% are thinking he is a great example "of not being able to polish a turd"...blossom. almost 78% of the people think that the "Iraq Invasion" was a mistake and the republicans are wanting it to be extended!!!
A current Republican President that is responsible for killing and relocating more Iraq's than Sadam!! Wow! And we are even wondering who could beat any Elephant nominated. Get serious.

Posted by mike temple | February 2, 2008 5:38 PM

This memo is so delusional, that it is hard for me to believe that anyone but a comedy writer would issue it.

A relatively unknown politician has come out of almost nowhere to challenge Hillary and might even beat her outright on Tuesday and we are supposed to believe that she will have the best chance to beat McCain. You can't make this stuff up.

The only way the Democrats can possibly lose the election is if they nominate Hillary. She will draw republicans to the polls in droves, drive independents to McCain as a caretaker president and deny them the chance to pry states in the midwest and the south from the the Republican camp and Mark Penn comes out with something as insipid as this memo. The very tone of it is something written by a loser.

But then again, maybe the Democrats will nominate her, they have always had a suicidal bent.

Posted by TOC | February 2, 2008 5:41 PM

If the Clintons tried to pull the race card against blacks who stood with them in the midst of the scandal that would have put an end to the Clinton presidency just to win, how much more will they play dirty if a Latino were to be their rival candidate. Very mean, and thankless!

HRC touts 35 years as her years of experience. She will not stand McCain in this parlance. At least Obama can more readily claim youthfulness against antiquity, new and the future against the past, Washington octogenarian against a Washington rookie, for Iraq war and against it, etc. HRC cannot win on change because of relying on Bill who cannot represent change. Remember HRC, negative rating – polarizing, triangulating, etc.

Posted by Jan | February 2, 2008 5:44 PM

I hadn't thought about the Latino factor very much, assuming they'd go heavily for the Democratic nominee. This group is likely to be key swing vote in November, but McCain (Senator McAmnesty, as his right wing opponents are wont to call him) is extremely well positioned to fight for the votes of Latinos. We need a candidate who is extremely popular with this burgeoning group of voters. That candidate's name is Hillary Clinton. Hillary is utterly dominating the Latino vote so far against Barack Obama, as the results in both Nevada and Florida demonstrate.

Posted by Jasper | February 2, 2008 5:45 PM

HILLARY WILL GO DOWN AS THE BEST PRESDENT THAT AMERICA AS EVER HAD! YOU WILL KNOW SOON !

Posted by H. Clark | February 2, 2008 5:46 PM

That's the best monoloque i've read in a long time.Clinton's waffling back and forth on every major issue in the race assures me that no Democrat will be sitting in the highest office in the land.I quit voting Democrat a long time ago and am proud of it!

Posted by dick | February 2, 2008 5:49 PM

I will apologize if this doesn't move all of you!

http://www.dipdive.com/

_______________________________________________

It moved me. Great piece of work and this is from a guy over 60.

Posted by TOC | February 2, 2008 5:49 PM

I want Obama to win against McCain.

But i can't hide my nervousness that the racist crap spewed above, by Robert Ethan and several others onwards, will in the end prove more weighty than anti-Clinton sentiment, and will propel McCain as the victor should there be a McCain-Obama contest.

I want to be wrong and not cynical. And I certainly plan on voting for Obama. I just hope that I can trust my fellow patriots to shelve their base animalistic unwarranted prejudices in their decision making and be human and be American and be just in their choice.

Posted by Caroline | February 2, 2008 5:50 PM

I am an Independent. I will vote for Obama. I will not vote for the Clintons. There are many out there just like me.

Obama would crush the general election, he is even picking up cross-over republicans and he is going to trounce Hillary in the traditional red states (you know, those states the keep delivering the GOP). Do not underestimate how many people are tired of the Clintons. And do not underestimate Bill's post presidential adventures. The NY Times story the other day was disgusting - new and relevant meaning to the term filthy rich. What else has he done? I suspect those investigative reporters are just getting started. Truth doesn't mind the light, why have the Clintons have built up a Fort Knox of secrecy around his presidential papers, the Clinton library and the Clinton foundation? What are they hiding?

Hillary's strong suit is bitter partisan politics. I've had enough of it. That was her husband in the oval office with an intern, not a vast right wing conspiracy. There are fairy tales in this campaign. They are ones that democrats have held onto about Bill Clinton, is there no crime for which some of you will not forgive him? Looking back fondly on the Clinton presidency is like looking back fondly on the pre-industrial era . . . and forgetting details like the plague. It's time for change - and that ain't gonna come from Hillary no matter how many times she rewrites her slogan.

Posted by brooks of sheffield | February 2, 2008 5:52 PM

Hellooooo - REZKO goes on trial around Feb 25 - are all of the Obamabots living in cult-land; can't see the forest for the trees; can't scrutinize your leader? - this story has been bubbling under the surface (except for the Chicago Tribune) for months, but the General Election will see a lot of Rezko in the Republicans playbook against Obama.

Posted by bbln | February 2, 2008 5:54 PM

I believe that the Clintons' endless attacks on Obama are backfiring, in that they show that he is able to withstand attacks after all. HRC's campaign keeps saying Obama won't be able to stand up to Republican attacks; I have a hard time believing that the attacks from Republicans could be worse than what HRC's people are slinging at him.

So, that part of the argument is particularly ridiculous to me.

Posted by gruvepuppy | February 2, 2008 5:55 PM

It would seem to me that most of the debate about electability, although persuasive from both sides misses out on a few major points. These differences in the candidates strengths are not often mentioned, but I believe are worth examining.

1. Mr. Obama has not been under the intense scrutiny that a general election and a presidency provides. Uniter or not he will be the enemy of the republican party and therefore be THE target. This puts him at a clear disadvantage in the general election since every tidbit of information on him that is negative will be news to everyone and will be spun as such, whereas any negative stuff on the Clintons will be old news that will only be salacious to people who already are not planning on voting for her.

2. There is no such thing as a uniter in politics. Any talk of this is just a clever catchphrase. Even the most successful presidents as far as elections go (A. Ronald Reagan with greatest landslide in electoral history, and B. Franklin Roosevelt, the president who served the most terms in office) were not really uniters in reality. Al this talk of new this and new that is as old as the new testament.

3. As for ending the war the democrats both have an equal advantage against McCain since he is already on record as being okay with it dragging on for another 100 years. Clinton, however will have the advantage of being able to sway some of the people who are a little more rooted in political realities when it comes to the war being ended than Mr. Obama. Most likely the US involvement in Iraq will be somewhere in between McCain's 100 years and Obama's immediate withdrawal. That will likely be about 50 years. This is about how long we have remained in other countries that we have had military involvement in, such as Germany, Japan, Korea, and Cuba. All of these places also have permenant bases, which due to our desire to be able to maintain a stable source of oil in Iraq I believe that a base or two of ours might get to stick around over there. Senator Clinton's stance is more rooted in political realities than Mr. Obama's pledge which will likely end up being similar to Bush Senior's "No New Taxes" campaign promise.

4. Mr. McCain will promote himself as though his time in Vietnam makes him a foreign policy ace and will try to make his captain title seem like he was really a general in Vietnam, although, like all political or military dynasties, that job belonged to daddy McCain. Hillary Clinton is more able to not appear wishy washy and inexperienced compared to McCain. Maybe Obama can raise the likelihood of McCain's death as a reason for youth over age, but I hardly think any voters will buy that one. John McCain is not running against an incumbent and an independent like when they pulled the too old to elect crap with Bob Dole, so Obama will likely bee looked upon as an inexperienced person to steer this ship.

I can't wait to hear how nobody even addresses the points I make. Usually anyone who makes a point with examples is pushed aside by the I love Hillary versus the I love Obama crowd instead of having a real debate.

Posted by blake | February 2, 2008 6:00 PM

3 points

1)imagine if you will in four years time Laura Bush runs for President, after serving four years in the senate for Texas...how many of us would come out of the woodwork to vote against another Bush (a Bush, we in general don't have anything against) to make sure we don't have another Bush in office? Would her argument of experience go as far as Hillary's has with us?

2)Which one, Hillary or Obama, would bow out gracefully and which one would destroy the party to win the whitehouse?

3) Who has promised "yes WE can" and which one has Promised "yes I can"...

The choice should be easy.

Posted by Whoa Now | February 2, 2008 6:03 PM

I disagree with the original poster.

This is MORE of the SAME from Hillary's campaign staff. Obama is the better choice to beat McCain because he can win the swing/independent voter. Hillary is extremely polarizing, and we all know the republicans are better at that game.

On top of that, Obama motivates/inspires new voters and represents REAL CHANGE. Vote Obama!

Posted by Christian Townsdin | February 2, 2008 6:11 PM

REMEMBER THE PLAYBOOK WAS WRITTEN BY THE REPUBLICANS AND BUSH JR. ON HOW TO BEAT McCAIN..HILLARY GOT THE PLAYS! (NEW ENGLAND PAT. VIDEO)

Posted by H. Clark | February 2, 2008 6:11 PM

I am an Independent. I will vote for Obama. I will not vote for the Clintons. There are many out there just like me.

There are also many "like you" who will vote for McCain in the general election, for McCain, too, has strong appeal for many independent voters.

That appeal will certainly strengthen as the GOP "educates" voters as to the "ultra liberal" nature of Obama's politics (pot legalization, amnesty for illegals, etc.). I agree with many of Obama's positions, for what it's worth, but I have no illusions some lunch pail swing voter in Ohio sees eye to eye with either of us on such things.

Moreover, when it comes to holding down the votes of Democrats, it is Hillary Clinton who is the stronger candidate, and that's why, even before the GOP machine begins to focus on Obama, she's performs just as well as he does against McCain, and probably better than Obama does against McCain once the inevitable GOP attacks are taken into consideration.

If allowing George W. Bush to hand off the keys to the White House to another Republican is something that terrifies you, the prudent choice is a vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton in your state's primary. With a little luck you'll still have the opportunity to vote for Obama as the vice presidential candidate in November.

Posted by Jasper | February 2, 2008 6:11 PM

I am an independent/swing voter. I tend to lean liberal.

Obama has voted "present" 130 times rather than make a decision. I don't feel comfortable with a president who needs Dr. Phil to hold his hand when decisions come along. He needs to work thru his aversion and fear of making decisions BEFORE he becomes president of the U.S.

Obama has said he's a uniter, not a divider -- those are scary words considering who made that statement/promise previously.

Obama says he doesn't know that much about governing, but he will surround himself with people who do. Come on people, I thought y'all wanted change! Dubya said he would do that and he did. Look where we are now. Do we want another Dubya in a different color or do we truly want change? Someone who can get the job done and get busy on it immediately because Dubya has screwed up so many things it's going to be a long time getting them sorted out again.

Obama might make a fine president after he's had a little more experience, but right now, I'd feel more confident in Hillary, whom according to a recent Newsweek article played a very big part in the last Clinton Presidency, during which our economy was way better than it's been since they left office, and during which we were not at war.

If Obama is the Democratic candidate, I will vote for whomever the Republicans run. Ideally, John McCain, but any Republican gets my vote over Obama. To me, Obama is just another Dubya.

Posted by Clarkkid | February 2, 2008 6:14 PM

Why would any supposedly objective journalist print a piece of propaganda by Clinton's campaign manager?

Posted by Cdonham | February 2, 2008 6:15 PM

Why would any supposedly objective journalist print a piece of propaganda by Clinton's campaign manager?

Posted by Cdonham | February 2, 2008 6:15 PM

Couldn't agree more with Mr. Penn. Obama is a blank slate that people are writing whatever they believe on. He has, however, shown himself to be bigtime pro-nuclear power, pro-coal and voted for tax breaks for oil companies (EXXON needs a tax break). As an environmentalist, I support Clinton.

Posted by Erik | February 2, 2008 6:16 PM

The Clinton we are faced with this time is:

1) a 15-year Wal-Mart lawyer,

2) the single person whose determination to "demonize" (her word, my friends) opponents of her own health care play is the reason a Democratic Congress and a Democratic (at least in name) President failed to give us universal health care 15 years ago.

If, in order to be "best-positioned" in the general election, the best the Democratic Party can offer voters is the person whose husband flew back to Arkansas in order to preside over the execution of a mentally retarded black man so that he could not be Willie Horton'd, then there is no reason to vote Democrat.

Recommended reading: The Worst Couple and No One Left to Lie To. Both books are by Christopher Hitchens, whom the ever-litigious Clintons did not sue for libel over either book.

Comment: It is despicable of you, Mr. Armbinder, to use The Atlantic's space to push a Clinton campaign ad into headlne-space. But not unexpected.

Posted by Charles Homer | February 2, 2008 6:17 PM

Billary would be just more of the same. She is George Bush in a skirt with Bill as the First Lady.

We need REAL change. Obama is it!

Posted by Patrick | February 2, 2008 6:18 PM

In response to Whoa Now

1) Laura Bush's profession, outside of political spouse is that of a librarian, whereas Mrs. Clinton was a lawyer, so I think that your first comparison is flawed, as the two are not really equals for the voting public, and that would become obvious pretty quickly.

2)Politics is about results, if Hillary wins the Whitehouse, then it means that she ahs not destroyed the party.

3)Contrary to you optimism WE are not running for office, THEY are. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is the truth. If you think differently, try to reach out to Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton to help them be the president. They will respond, thats okay I think I can do it myself.

But then of course, the choice is yours.

Posted by blake | February 2, 2008 6:19 PM

Google Mark Penn and you will find out about his ties to UNION BUSTING and tobacco lobbying and Yucca Mountain support. But Don't take my word for it. Google is the way and the light.
OBAMA '08 and '012

Posted by NMD |