Facts are facts. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have been under national scrutiny from the Republicans for years. Both are experienced with how to deal with those problems. Their pasts have been vetted; everything that could be used against them is already out.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has not had his past vetted. He has yet to run a serious campaign against a Republican or take hard hits from the right-wing machine. This makes Obama a vulnerable candidate and calls into question his electability next November.
Past drug use, although it matters nothing at all to me, is something that could prove to be a turn off to many swing voters. The Obama campaign likes to put forth the fact that he has been open about it in his book and in public. But that, in a general election campaign against the Republicans, won't matter. Do you really think that ordinary Americans have read Obama's book? Of course not. The Republicans will use this against Obama and it will hurt him. I wish it wasn't true, but it is.
And it's not just his past drug use either. We, much less the majority of Americans, know very little about Barack Obama's past. He has not been vetted. There are surely things in his past that could hurt his electability. Every candidate has problems no doubt, but candidates like Clinton and Edwards have had their "dirty laundry" aired a long time ago. Their "dirty laundry" is old news to voters. Obama's would be new news.
Clinton and Edwards have both proven successful in winning over Republican voters and winning in strong Republican areas. Obama does not have that experience. His one major election, his 2004 Senate campaign, was against a very weak opponent, Alan Keyes. I mean, seriously, let's face it, Alan Keyes is just about the weakest Republican in the country. The '08 election, in much contrast to Obama's Senate campaign, will be far from a cake walk. As a Democrat committed to getting a Democrat elected in '08, I want to put my trust in someone like Edwards or Clinton, who know how to deal with the Republican dirt machine and who have proven to be winners in tough battles.
1 comment :
I think you're reading too much into Obama's cocaine use in his early years. America has proven to be very forgiving of a candidate's early indiscretions. Remember that the Republicans tried to make a big issue out of Bill Clinton's "i tried marijuana but didn't inhale" statement; not because of his use of the drug but because by saying he didn't inhale, it made it sound as if he was trying to soften the impact of his use before someone else who was there brought it up later in the campaign.
Remember also that the weekend before the 2000 elections, it was revealed the Bush had a few prior arrests for DUI. The release didn't hurt Bush. In fact, many people say that he got a sufficient bump to put him over the top, as America not only overlooked Bush's prior indiscretions but seemed to think that Gore had sat on the information and released it late in the campaign to hurt Bush. Obama has a lot of weaknesses but I don't think his admission of drug use in his youth would hurt him.
Post a Comment