UNITED STATES: Which Democrat has the best shot against McCain?
KEY POINTS:
POLLING:
Opinion polls by CNN, Time and AP tell the same story: In a match up with John McCain, Hillary Clinton is either level or slightly ahead. Barack Obama is six to eight points ahead of McCain. In Obama's case, there have been several examples in the campaign of polls over-estimating his support. Still, at this stage, he has the edge.
POSITIVES:
Barack Obama:
Obama has charisma, the ability to inspire people and general likeability. He has a calm, authorative, here's-the-deal manner that inspires confidence. His electrifying speechifying - in a easy-on-the-ear baritone - is without peer. He makes people feel good ... and feel good about voting for him.
His endorsement by members of the Kennedy family spawned comparisons to JFK. - who was younger but far more experienced than Obama when he became president - but a more relevant comparison is probably with Tony Blair when the former British Prime Minister was first elected.
Like Blair then, Obama transcends tribal politics, attracting non-party loyalists, independents and even some Republicans. Like Blair then, he defies easy categorisation in his background and approach. Initially, he struggled to draw party loyalists, relying heavily on independents and new young voters. His call for change and arguments that he is the most electable and that only he can get Washington working is reminiscent of Blair's positioning himself above his party. Obama, like Blair then, presents himself as apart from the problem - unlike the 'old school' Democratic politicians and activists. Obama's message of unity, manners and Blair-like crisp, rather corporate appearance, reassures many centrists.
He has lured a lot of new voters. Even though his record suggests he's hardly a radical, he would still represent an intoxicating plunge into the unknown. The Kennedy endorsement helped Obama cast his candidacy in historic terms: Voters, catch this moment in time.
Obama has tried to turn his 'freshness' into an advantage, pouring scorn on those who say he needs to be "seasoned" in Washington until hope and idealism have been drained away. No wonder that appeals to younger voters - it chimes with a younger person's view of the world where more is possible and experience is less important. But, as Newsweek has pointed out, it also points to an attempt to paint US politics in Democratic hues, breaking the shackles where conservative ideas have been in ascendency. Obama tries to link Clinton to McCain and Bush - arguing against electing a cautious president unable to move far from centrist, Republican, positions.
Hillary Clinton:
Clinton's negatives are, in a way, part of her positives - for this election she's the devil you know, a pair of safe hands for those who want change from the Bush Administration ... but not too much. Her pitch is her experience and clear-eyed, dogged toughnness. Voters expect her to push hard to get programmes implemented and to deal with foreign policy in a pragmatic, realistic way.
For this job, there's something to be said for experience and learning from mistakes: if Obama wins he may take all of his first term to learn the job; with Clinton, as a former first lady and with several years in the Senate behind her, it should be less of a step up. Obama supporters on the internet often cite Vice-President Dick Cheney - as someone with experience but in their opinion questionable views - to downplay her experience. Obama says judgment matters more and cites his stance against the Iraq invasion. He is therefore vulnerable to his Republican foe pointing out his own lack of judgment in entering a property deal with a shady businessman which he himself has admitted was "boneheaded".
There's no getting around the fact that Obama has only been in the Senate for three years. Expect the Republicans to attack his 'thin' resume and 'liberal' voting record. Their pitch will be: We're at war, people. Now is not the time to entrust our security to a promising, but junior senator.
NEGATIVES:
Obama:
Polling shows that Obama has the least negative ratings of the three. This is in part because he is a fresh face. Clinton argues that he is untested against Republicans and could be undone by negative politics. Then Vice-President George Bush snr overcame a large poll deficit to Michael Dukakis in 1988 through brutally effective attack ads.
Obama has potential negatives in: publicly admitted drug use in his youth; untrue claims in circulation on the internet that he is a Muslim, combined with a middle name of Hussein and a surname similar to Osama; past friendship and dealing with a businessman about to go on trial for corruption. None of these issues have prevented Obama performing powerfully in the primaries. It remains to be seen, though, how the Republicans will target him if he becomes the nominee. Because he is essentially new to many voters, suddenly highlighted problems could have a sharp impact. Voters could wonder: 'Is he what he seems? Maybe I was wrong about him?' The Democrats do not want nasty surprises.
Clinton:
Polling shows Clinton has the highest negative rating of the three. She's considered by many to be controlled and calculating. When she shouts her voice grates. Commentators have even attacked her laugh. A major negative for many is the Clinton name - continuing America's game of dynastic ping pong. Who's next? Jeb and Chelsea?
Clinton's campaign argues that she's a known quantity, there's nothing new that can be thrown at her. There's something to be said for that: Whitewater, infidelity, it has all be raked over before. The Republicans can be dismissed as focused negatively on the past, when the country wants a new future, if they bring those up. Conservatives openly consider her a hate figure, and publicly say having her as the nominee would energise their core supporters. Is at least some of the positive spin surrounding Obama an attempt by conservative pundits to talk him up because they see him as the best one to face?
DEBATES:
Obama is a better speaker than debater, though he can talk details as the Los Angeles debate showed. She is a better debater than speaker with impressive command of detail. Clinton can talk with authority on the economy, health and foreign relations - all key election issues.
INDEPENDENTS:
One of Obama's major advantages is his proven ability to draw independent voters. In primaries where independents have voted, he has won most. This is one of his strongest arguments to face McCain because McCain, likewise, is popular among independents and conservative moderates. He was able to win several traditional Republican-voting states on Super Tuesday and with more votes than the winning Republican candidate received. This is, at least in part, because of general enthusiasm for Democrats this year, Clinton took Tennessee and Oklahoma with much bigger numbers than the winning Republican as well. Participation in the Democratic primaries has been well up on the Republican primaries.
CORE SUPPORTERS:
Obama has had difficulty connecting with the Democratic voters who have rallied to Clinton's banner: women, blue collar workers, older voters, Hispanics. Obama's supporters are blacks, young people, independents, university graduates, the wealthy. Unless this pattern changes, there has to be doubt over whether he can win in the crucial swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. The Obama campaign argues that he has brought in a lot of voters who would not be interested otherwise and that Clinton's supporters would accept him as the nominee. A difficult constituency for both is white men, but Obama does better with men generally. An AP poll yesterday shows that he splits the male vote with McCain, whereas men prefer McCain to Clinton, countering her advantage with women. Clinton's appeal to the mainstays of the party was shown in her big wins on Super Tuesday - California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts - the states the nominee should carry.
ISSUES:
Obama was against the Iraq invasion from the start. Clinton voted for it, based on assessments at the time. They both say they will withdraw troops from Iraq. McCain criticised management of the war, arguing for more troops and supported the 'surge' which has helped to bring some stability to parts of Iraq. He says troops will stay in Iraq as long as it takes.
Obama says that his stance on Iraq would provide a clearer contrast to McCain. Polls show that the war is unpopular and Americans on the whole want out, although conservatives see withdrawal without winning as tantamount to surrender. McCain's big selling point as a candidate is his experience on security - he will do all he can to make it the issue. He will tie progress in the war to keeping America safe from terrorists.
This is the great unknown: Who will be the most convincing in either making the case for a change from current policies or in saying that those policies are essential to the 'war on terror'? The Democrats will ask: Do you want Bush Mark III? The Republicans will ask: Can they be trusted to keep us safe?
Are there enough younger voters, and enough voters fed up with the war to line up with Obama? But he could be vulnerable to swipes that he can't be trusted to take a hard line on terrorists and can't be relied on to make hard calls when America is threatened. Clinton can point to her vote and cautiousness over Iran as concrete signs of hawkishness and preparedness to make tough decisions. What can Obama point to? On the other hand, would Clinton be enough of a change for those wanting change? Would she get tied up in knots over her evolving position on Iraq the way John Kerry did?
Polls show Democrats trust Clinton for economic management more than Obama. His healthcare option, which involves more choice than Clinton's, is not as straightforward as hers. But it might appeal more to cross-over voters.
