One Reason Why Obama is Better in the General

Hillary Clinton likes to argue that she has been vetted and tested on a national stage, where her opponent Barack Obama has not. The implication of this argument is that the Republican attack machine will destroy the less experienced Obama, and will be unable to throw anything new at her. This argument is deeply flawed for a variety of reasons. First, there are always more skeletons in the Clinton's closet. Indeed there have been several news stories in this election cycle about Hillary's refusal to release her tax returns and her refusal to disclose the records surrounding Bill Clinton's presidential library. Moreover, the NY Times recently published a piece about Bill Clinton's questionable ties to the mining industry in Kazakhstan. These stories are likely to increase in a general election atmosphere. But perhaps the fundamental flaw in Hillary's argument is that it ignores the incredible hatred conservatives all across the country have for her and her husband. The thought of a Billary presidency elicits a reaction from the right similar to what the left might do if George W. Bush were to run for President again in 8 years. In other words, Hillary starts with half the country strongly against her. Whereas Obama appeals to independents and moderates and is running a campaign built on the idea of bringing people together. That is not to say that the right will not attack Obama, because they will. But those attacks are much less likely to drive a depressed and split Republican party to the polls. For a recent example of my point, see Exhibit A: Check out this picture of merchandise for sale at the recent C-PAC conference. Note how much of it is directed at Billary, and how none of it is directed at Obama.

Hillary's 35 Years

Anyone who has listened to Hillary Clinton campaign for more than 5 minutes has heard her familiar claim that she has "been working to bring positive change to people's lives for 35 years." A new article by McClatchy examines that cliam and finds that "Clinton spent the bulk of her career -- 15 of those 35 years -- at one of Arkansas' most prestigious corporate law firms, where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards.Neither she nor her surrogates, however, ever mention that on the campaign trail."
What annoys me is that Hillary tries to basic claims that everything she ever did since she graduated from law school was an effort to serve in the public sector. This is obviously not the case. The primary rationale for the Clinton candidacy is experience. When it turns out that experience isn't all its craked up to be, what else does she have to offer?

The full article can be found here.

Peace,

Donkey