« Who Won in Ohio and Texas? | Main | Do or Die Has Come and Gone »

If Hillary Can Out-Campaign Obama, Imagine What She'll Do to McCain

If the press scrutiny Obama faced this last week had been occurring for the last two months the delegate count today would be an entirely different story.

Fortunately, when we reach the convention in August we will have the benefit of super delegates who can vote to reflect the realities there in August, and the Democratic party won't have to settle for the candidate who was able to bamboozle the most delegates out of the voters -- aided by a complacent and fawning press.

The Rezko scandal will have run its course -- and it can be expected that more examples of Obama ineptitude will hit the front pages. What proved out this week, and the voters saw it and it was reflected in last night's results, is that (1) Obambi has not been honest with the American people, and (2) in the face of adversity and in crisis, Obama doesn't hold up well. Seeing him running away from the press as he did here clearly underscores the extent to which this man is not strong in a crisis.

Thanks to the super delegate structure the best candidate will emerge as out nominee, not the best poseur who scammed the most delegates out of the voters with rhetoric and plagiarised speeches.

It's a whole new ballgame.

The bottom line... if Clinton can beat Obama when he's outspending her 2-1 and has twice the volunteers -- if Hillary can overcome those odds, she'll decimate McCain in the national election, and sweep in filibuster-proof majorities in Congress.

It's time to eject the Republicans from Washington, not sit down and make deals with them.

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (8)


If John McCain was a lightweight with only a rather undistinguished 6 years as a Senator, then I would agree with you.

On the other hand, McCain can simply remind Americans of the promises that Hillary and the Democrats have made regarding massive tax and spending increases - remember, just a straight repeal of the Bush tax rate cuts from 2001 would double the tax burden for middle class families, from 15% to 28%. Hillary will also force you -- under penalty of law -- to participate in a her government-managed health care system. Obama can't criticize Hillary on those issues, because his positions are essentially the same.

And right now, those two things might frighten more Americans than either terrorism or our combat efforts overseas.

Lee Ward:

The economy and health care are the two front burner issues with all Americans, red and blue, and the Democrats are the strongest in both regards.

I'm glad Americans like yourself have a strong candidate they can rely upon to represent the values and ideals you find most important, Mike. The way Republicans were wailing about McCain a few short weeks ago I was worried that the GOP had disenfranchised too many with the selection of McCain.

But anytime you have a candidate like McCain who's emerged as the "least objectionable alternative," and has not been selected because he's representative of the people, some disenfranchisement occurs.

I think the small percentage of disenfranchised Republicans who won't be convinced by the pandering McCain will have to do to reach all corners of the Republican spectrum will just plain not turn out for the man, and that the Democratic nominee will prevail.

It's going to be a close race, but your candidate is a 71 year-old war monger. I don't think your chances are as swell as you might believe...

but we're on the road to finding out. I hope you enjoy the journey as much as I will.


lee, it doesn't matter which of the dems is the candidate. mccain will crush them.

people want a solution to the cost of healthcare. that does NOT mean they want the government to manage it. people want a better economy, that does NOT mean that they want the government to manage it. and mike brings up a great point about the reality of the tax situation.

and let's talk about iraq, why don't we? we're winning there now, why don't we talk about that? the people in iraq are rejecting islamic facism you know.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

The government won't manage health care under the Democratic plans, ke - they'll manage health insurance. Big difference.

I'm sure McCain will make much of the surge's success, but the number of Americans who believe the Iraq war was necessary and important is rather small. The fact that a corner has been turned on the military front does not change the fact that the Republicans mis-managed the war to begin with, while failing to bring AQ to justice.

Nothing going forward is going to change those two realities. The end does not justify the means, even if the end were ultimately a bed of roses - and we all know that is not going to be the case. McCain will make the point repeatedly that we should be in Iraq for a hundred years if needed, and that position alone will lose the election for him.


Will the way I look at it none of the three are worth the powder to blow them to hell.
But this is what most people said they want God help us we no not what we have done.

Because we have gave away our country.
We have let the new media and politicians running for president shif the American people from illegal immigration to the economy when all in all they are both the same thing and today the people who are pushing for illegal immigrants are trying to make their cutthroat legislation and push it down the American people throats.

To one thing that hardly gets mentioned is chain migration and that goes like this if we have 20 million illegal at the present time in each one of them would bring just one family member you see how fast that becomes 20 becomes 40 million so the American people will be looking at maybe 100 million people that cannot speak English and could be so many criminals that you will not be safe in your own home.


by managing the health care insurance, the government is managing health care. they want to dictate costs, procedures, who can get coverage (or who must have coverage). sure you call it a different name, it still stinks.

you are right that the war was mismanaged at one point. that was recognized, and the course was corrected. i won't say it's going swimmingly, but we are seeing some real progress in iraq on security, on the political institutions, and on the everyday lives of ordinary iraqis.

but with the changes in Iraq, McCain can stand up and say "see, these are the changes to strategy i argued for, and they're working. i know what i'm doing, and here is the proof"

if you can't see that as a powerful arguement in mccain's arsenal, then i suggest you need to do some re-thinking.

and if you think that AQ isn't being brought to justice, look at the number of members that have been captured or killed. look at their popularity in Iraq and increasingly Afghanistan. We are doing some serious damage to their ability to plan and execute terrorist acts. and that's the goal.

the only things that hillary or obama really bring to the table is a domestic agenda. and one that's, in my opinion, fraught with peril. let's look at a couple of examples

union membership? obama and hillary both support doing away with secret ballot voting for union organization. seriously undemocratic. seriously fraught with the potential of corruption and intimidation.

universal health care? they want the government to increase it's role in the health care market. but look at the problems the government already has with medicare and the VA. and you want them involved in the whole shebang?

taxes? they both favor massive tax increases by allowing the bush tax cuts, which helped get us out of the last recession, to expire. you know those tax breaks that have a bigger impact on low and middle income households than on the rich?

guns? they both favor gun control laws. 'nuf said.

immigration? okay, this won't be an issue since all 3 favor amnesty. /grr

you get the idea? now imagine all the fun that mccain and his supporters will have with ads. and can you imagine clinton in a debate with mccain arguing experience?

CLINTON: when i was first lady...

MCCAIN: i had already served in the Senate for 10 years.

CLINTON: when i was on the armed services committee...

MCCAIN: it was nice to see you join me there, where i had already been doing work for many years.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

by managing the health care insurance, the government is managing health care. they want to dictate costs, procedures, who can get coverage (or who must have coverage). sure you call it a different name, it still stinks.

Do you want to point to what we've got now as better than having the government reduce soaring health care costs for Americans? I don't see the downside...

"i won't say it's going swimmingly, but we are seeing some real progress in iraq on security, on the political institutions, and on the everyday lives of ordinary iraqis."

Hooson has an excellent post that strongly disagrees with your assessment - link.

...if you can't see that as a powerful arguement in mccain's arsenal, then i suggest you need to do some re-thinking.

I really don't - sorry. I understand the logic - that Democrats wanted to cut and run and the brave McCain insisted we send more Americans into harm's way instead, but the majority of Americans don't want us in there -- period -- so the fact that McCain ignored that and supported the escalation doesn't win him any 'new' support - I'm surprised you can't see that...


the downside would be a decline in the availablity and quality of health care services as both insurance companies and doctors leave the business. look at the UK for a prime example of that.

i read paul's post. he did not include any links to back up his statistics. without more information backing up the numbers that also includes things such as cause of death and locations, any comment would be just guessing at this point. as an aside, it would be interesting to compare current death statistics with the same from say 2000 or 1995...sometime when saddam was still in power.

looking at the polls, the questions, the answers, and the trends, i think it would be more accurate to say that the majority of americans don't 1) want to see soldiers die needlessly (as the MSM was telling them what was happening) and 2) don't want the US to lose.

one of the reasons i say that was that back in 2003, the polls showed strong support for our actions. as time went by, with the constant negative reporting (some of it was appropriate, but much wasn't) the numbers went down. with the success of the surge, and the press actually reporting it, we're seeing those numbers go back up. this does not surprise me.


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.