Hillary is simply pointing out McCain will use his vast experience

[quinnox]

against Obama in the election if Obama is the nominee. This is a fact, and a true one. McCain is already doing it, hello.

So there is nothing wrong with this line of attack that I can see.

Obama has made a similiar argument about her electability, saying his supporters may not vote for her.

I didn't hear the outrage from Obama supporters then.

And he was also saying she was like Bush early in the campaign, remember that one. I'd say being compared to Bush is a lot worse than McCain!

[joeybee12]

1. Somebody got a dictionary? Please define endorse and praise...

...two different words...HRC is trying to point out her experience and BO's lack of experience by highlighting and comparing herself to McCain. It's called STRATEGY!!!!!

[quinnox]

4. exactly

Seems fair game to me.

[joeybee12]

31. Oh yeah! n/t

[TwilightGardener]

6. That's why she's a fucking idiot. She'll lose on her own brilliant strategery.

[joeybee12]

36. Hmmm...fucking idiot...another objective Obama-ite comment.

[tabatha]

7. Both Hillary's and McCain's judgment skills are very poor.

If you think McCain has good judgment because of his experience then you are living in la-la land.

Hillary's experience failed her with both the Iraq votes and the Iran vote.

So much for experience.

Please point out the fallacy of the judgment vote.

[joeybee12]

30. Please take a look at the polls...I personally think McLame doesn't have

good judgement...but the electorate believes he does and no way ranting against it here on DU is going to change that...it's probably the one area where he polls well.

[KittyWampus]

2. McCain's 'vast' experience includes spouting "bomb, bomb Iran",eating cake w/Bush while NOLA drowned

changing his tune on torture, supporting the invasion of Iraq.

And Hillary has no more experience than Obama.

Meanwhile, Hillary said Obama DOES NOT HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE.

[quinnox]

8. no she didn't

she never said he had no experience at all!

[cali]

19. Of course she did. She said all he had was a speech

in 2002. Surely no one is so stupid as to interpret that as anything but what it was: A statement saying that Obama is not fit to be President. Dirty Hilly will regret this tactic. Dem insiders don't like it. They wouldn't like it if Obama played it the same way and said that he and McCain have the honor and integrity to be president but Hill does not. Her comments aren't playing well. I'll enjoy seeing them come back to bite her in the ass.

[quinnox]

25. that is just a sound bite

Its a throwaway political soundbite. Both of them do it, its part of the campaign.

[Rainbowreflect]

43. I would buy the "sound bite" if she did not repeat it over & over again.

Also if she had said she feared Obama's lack of experience would cause the Dems to lose in the general if he was the nominee I might buy that. It is the way she words it that really pisses me off.
The first time I heard it I gave her the benefit of the doubt that she just misspoke. But she has to know how this will be used by the right if Obama is the nominee.

[earthlover]

44. yes it is a soundbite....rather than anything of substance....but it still helped McCain

Can you tell me why she is doing soundbites for McCain? I thought she was supposed to be a Democrat. I think she has either lost it or is evil.

[earthlover]

40. I get so tired of Hillary apologists being intellectually dishonest

Hillary said point blank all Obama had was one speech. Whereas McCain was experienced and had crossed the threshold of commander in chief. So Hillary is not only saying Mccain would use this arguement, she is making the arguement FOR McCain! I cannot remember a Democrat EVER doing this.

It is as if Hillary is so arrogant that she cannot conceive that Obama can be the nominee, so she can't conceive that she is possible hurting our party and our candidate in november.

Or she knows this and simply doesn't care.

In either case, there is no excuse for what she is doing.

And lying about what she said doesn't help.

Have you Hillary Herd folks ever conceived of the idea that your cult leader can make a mistake? Why the totally blind obedience? Why trying to say she said what she didn't say? I sometimes think there is brainwashing going on over there. So sad. But it doesn't help when Hillary says bullshit like this and you folks say she didn't say it and besides her shit don't stink. Cult-like.

[TwilightGardener]

3. LOL! Hillary should run with those scissors, point up!

'Cause she's no match for McCain in experience and qualifications, on the terms she just laid out.

[quinnox]

9. yea but she is a lot closer than Obama

thats the point I believe she is making.

[Renew Deal]

13. It's a bad argument

Because she automatically loses it.

[TwilightGardener]

15. You don't ever elevate your opponent to the office he's seeking--you make people see

that he doesn't belong there. Now McCain looks like he belongs there. The ads in the fall write themselves. Fucking stupid strategy.

[quinnox]

18. I doubt it

McCain likes Hillary and I think the campaign would be very civil and polite between them.

And she can make other arguments against McCain, experience is just one that works to her advantage over Obama.

[TwilightGardener]

26. LOL! Let's see how "civil" it is. Really, is it Obama supporters who are naive??

You've got to be kidding! :rofl:

[islandmkl]

28. AYFSM?

[americanstranger]

33. Wow! You think McCrazy's going to be civil? Really?

My God.

Isn't the big knock on Obama that he wants to reach out to Republicans?

For two weeks Clinton has been doing exactly that.

And should she finagle her way into the nomination, McCrazy is gonna wait for Clinton to extend her hand, open that huge jaw and bite her hand clean off. Bank on it.

There's a fundamental disconect here. Obama is being excoriated for advocating reaching across the aisle. Clinton is already doing that.

Where's the outrage? Where's the consistency?

- as

[earthlover]

45. It is incredibly naive to even dream the Repukes won't be negative against Hillary

That would be laughable if it were not so disconnected from reality. Hillary is their wet-dream opponent and has been for years!

You bet they will make experience an issue against Hillary. Just as much as with OBama. But the difference is Obama has things to shoot back at him, like his lack of judgement in Iraq. Hillary can't touch McCain on Iraq and for the life of me I don't know what she is going to say in response to the experience issue when McCain uses her own quotes against HER!

She has also provided the video and sound clips for their commercials with this crap viz a viz McCain and Obama. Gotta be the dumbest thing any candidate has ever said in history, or at least within easy reach of it.

She will have to totally redefine her campaign themes against McCain. Of course, she is so much a chameleon that should be easy for her. Except for one thing....one of the things McCain is going to go after her on is being a chameleon!

[Emillereid]

5. Quit trying to defend her comments - she's a traitor plain and simple. She is not

pointing out the line of attack McCain could use - it's the line of attack SHE is using and she is definitely supporting McCain over Obama and giving him oodles of sound-bites for his ads in the Fall. Shame on Hillary and Shame on her supporters.

[dchill]

10. What Clinton is pointing out...

is that Samantha Power had it right. You are correct - pointing out is not the same as using.

[Renew Deal]

11. Will McCain use his vast experience against Hillary?

Of course. This is a dumb argument for Hillary. He's got way more experience than either of them. That's not the fight you want to have with McCain.

Hillary endorsed McCain. She built up to tear down the Democrat. That's the problem with it.

Obama said that he attracted different support than Hillary. She wouldn't appeal to many of his voters. This is true. He didn't say his supporters should not support her.

She said he was like Bush and Rove, so you're last argument is hypocritical (and dishonest).

[against all enemies]

12. Is Hillary suggesting we support McCain over Obama in the GE?

She has stated he is a better choice over Obama concerning protecting the country.

[quinnox]

14. No, she is saying she has a better argument against McCain

on the experience issue than Obama.

[against all enemies]

27. Why doesn't she just point out her strengths without damaging Obama?

[Goblinmonger]

34. Right

because she has been a senator for goodness sake. How can Obama hope to keep up with that?

[earthlover]

48. No, that is NOT what she said! Be honest!

[TwilightGardener]

17. Yes.

[Lucinda]

16. Yup.

But they don't see it that way.

[Bread and Circus]

20. Actually, no it's a little deeper than that. If you would like to be informed

please read along.

First, I will agree that one of the meta messages is as you put it: "pointing out McCain will use his vast experience against Obama in the election if Obama is the nominee"

The thing is that if that is only what she meant she could simply say it that way, just like you did. However, she isn't saying it that way or anywhere near that way.

Actually, her main goal is to actually imperil Obama's general election viability because doing so is the only way she can possibly secure the nomination. The following article is one you must read if you actually care to understand what is at play:

________

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c

The morning after Tuesday's primaries, Hillary Clinton's campaign released a memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." I eagerly dug into the paper, figuring it would explain how Clinton would obtain the Democratic nomination despite an enormous deficit in delegates. Instead, the memo offered a series of arguments as to why Clinton should run against John McCain--i.e., "Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done"--but nothing about how she actually could. Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? The memo does not say.

"The reason it doesn't say is that Clinton's path to the nomination is pretty repulsive. She isn't going to win at the polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton's Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn't going to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead.

That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified."

______________

[frazzled]

21. No: in that case she would have said the following

She could have said: "I believe I can go toe to toe against Senator McCain on the issue of national security; Senator Obama cannot." (Note the word against in that statement.)

This would have been a fair statement to utter (although not necessarily true--it would be up to Democratic primary voters to assess it.)

That is not what she said, however: she said, roughly: Senator McCain and I have national security experience, Obama doesn't. Rather than saying she could better stand up AGAINST McCain, she allied herself with a Republican against a Democrat. Dangerous, and wholly unprecedented. Believe me, if this were the kind of thing candidates say all the time, it would not be getting all the attention it is. Even Paul Begala, her supporter, said it disturbed him. Think about that

[earthlover]

49. you're absolutely right. What makes it even worse is that it was Hillary saying this

McCain could say the exact same thing and it would not have near the impact or effect. A Democratic leader saying this about Obama? Now THAT is something that McCain's team can use with real resonance, a lot more than he ever could have done on the issue alone.

Hillary: Running for 2012.

[islandmkl]

22. "Hillary is simply pointing out McCain will use his vast experience

against Obama in the election if Obama is the nominee."

Myopia can be dangerous...

Hillary has shot at Obama, but the bullet will be headed her way soon...

McCain>Obama = McCain>McClinton

[Avalux]

23. Doesn't work. Hillary is validating McCain - he's the opponent.

Do you realize how he will use that against Obama during the GE? Hillary crossed the line, sorry.

[Recursion]

24. He'll also use it against her. Neither of them are remotely as experienced as him.

Experience is the one and only criteria by which McCain handily beats both Obama and Clinton. Why did she bring it up?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Yeah, yeah.

So is Lieberman.

:eyes:

[kentuck]

32. "Hillary is simply pointing out McCain will use his vast experience"

to make wrong decisions and show a total lack of judgement in invading other countries that are not a threat to us. Maybe even take us into another war with that vast experience. The experience that we are seeing on display has clouded their judgement to the point that they could be compared to the man inside Plato's cave...

[jenmito]

35. delete-dupe

[jenmito]

37. No she's not. She reduced Obama's entire lifetime of experience to "a speech."

Yet she admires and respects her good friend John McCain who has "met the CIC threshhold." :eyes:

[shraby]

38. I call bullshit! She was praising the candidate

for the opposing party.

[malik flavors]

39. Hillary has compared Obama to Bush throught her entire camapign. A president to have a beer with?

Uniter not a divider? Remember that. Oh yea, now you do.

The fact is McCain has a shit load more experience than Hillary, and Hillary doesn't have that much more experience than Obama. So what's the difference?

Obama's supporters might not vote for her, so what? He didn't say they would vote for McCain instead.

But the Hillary supporters just don't seem to understand this one important point:

YOU DON'T THROW A FELLOW DEMOCRAT UNDER THE BUS AND SPEAK OUT IN FAVOR OF THE CHALLENGING REPUBLICAN. PERIOD.

The party comes first, and you have to be pretty damn selfish to damage the party's chances just to increase your own.

[JackORoses]

41. Benedict Clinton

[Beregond2]

42. McCain

What exactly is this "vast experience" of McCain's that is supposed to be so impressive? Being kept in a cage for years, and then marrying a beer heiress? Has he ever had a real job, outside of being a shill for corporations? OK, he was a "hero" I guess, but how does, presumably, having killed some "gooks" back in the sixties translate into good job training for the Presidency? Just asking...

[HCE SuiGeneris]

46. Bwahahahahahaha

You are too funny.

[Armstead]

47. Did you hear the way she said it? It was out of bounds

She said "Senator McCain will campaign on his experience. I will campaign on my experience. What can Senator Obama run on? One speech in 2002."

That was basically telling voters that the GOP candidate is more qualified than the other Democratic candidate.

That was destructive to the Democrats chances in November, and there is no way to spin it otehrwise.

[earthlover]

50. Hillary is running for 2012. She doesn't CARE if McCain wins.If Obama won she'd have to wait longer

She may be too old to run in 2016, after OBama's 2nd term. If she was Obama's VP, she would find a way to sabotage him so she could run in 2012. She is not a team player, at least not on our team. She is in it to win. Remember? Period.

[Armstead]

51. An earlier thread by yours truly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4927070

[PerfectSage]

52. Experience doesn't matter 2 shits Leadership matters.

Go read: The Heart of Business. If you want to learn about leadership.

McCain my have more experience, but I know enough about military Grand Strategy to know his so called national security strengh is a joke. :rofl: