Katherine Miller

Following Mitt Romney’s departure from the race, Sen. John McCain is now solidly the Republican nominee. Accepting this, we must turn to this question: Who does he have the better chance of beating? Conventional wisdom says that candidate is Sen. Hillary Clinton, launcher of 1,000 ships of hate; however, I think McCain has much stronger odds against Sen. Barack Obama.

Tuesday, Obama and McCain each won plenty of states across the country, including Georgia and Alabama for Obama and New York and California for McCain. McCain will not carry those states in the general election, and should Obama be the Democratic nominee, he certainly will not win Kansas no matter how hard Gov. Kathleen Sebelius tries.

So, what does this mean? Independent voters and swing states — the ability to appeal to the voter who truly values bipartisanship — will matter even more. Against McCain, Obama’s inexperience will be glaringly clear, as will his textbook liberalism. For a candidate who speaks so lovingly of bipartisan unity, Obama’s relatively insignificant stint in the Senate has not followed that trend.

For each and every aspect the supposedly dissenting core of the GOP lambastes McCain on — immigration, campaign finance reform, judicial nominations — McCain has proven bipartisan efforts where Obama does not.

Months of intense general election campaigning will reveal that “hope” does not solve a war, nor does it solve immigration, nor does it solve health care. When Obama stands next to the genuine article of moderate, bipartisan politics and bringing us all together, he can speak as eloquently as he can, but can Obama say he is a member of the Gang of 14? No. McCain can. Is Obama’s name on McCain-Feingold? And, while he co-sponsored the first incarnation of McCain’s immigration bill, the amnesty position was far less of a political risk for Obama and even still, he backed far away from the issue in the past year during his campaign.

Obama can say opposed the war in 2002 as a state senator — requiring no legislative decision on his part, but nevertheless a popular rallying cry for him. However, he cannot say he significantly contributed to any resolution while in the U.S. Senate that significantly changed the course of the war. If McCain can make clear that, while the ebb and flow of Iraq has not been ideal, his legislative support for the troop surge has dramatically improved the conditions there, he can illustrate his support for the war as something far greater than Obama’s promise withdraw: a proven ability to improve bad situations. Clinton’s recognition of a past mistake — without an apology — is much more effective against McCain.

I suspect that, if Obama is indeed the nominee, we will see a campaign far different from the messages of hope and honor; it would be a nasty affair. Obama’s greatest fear has to be McCain turning to him on a broadcast watched by millions and saying, “Sen. Obama, what have you done to unite this country?”

—Katherine Miller is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Science. She can be reached at katherine.m.miller@vanderbilt.edu

Submitted by Katherine Miller on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 16:57.

The point is well taken (and

The point is well taken (and actually someone emailed me that link yesterday), but I'm thinking in terms of after a long, grueling general election campaign season involving plenty of debates--and honestly, I just think Hillary's better in debates-- and advertising from outside groups. Also, this is looking at everything from a national perspective rather than the electoral process, where I think Republicans have the advantage to begin with, as well as an additional two months, while the Dems sort out who will be the nominee, of campaigning and coalescence among the conservative core around John McCain. Thanks for reading -KMM

Submitted by Reeve Hamilton on Sat, 02/09/2008 - 01:58.

I think this is pretty clear:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/20008.matchups.schneider/index.html

Submitted by Katherine Miller on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 02:16.

I wanted to actually address

I wanted to actually address some of the comparison with Hillary, but I was limited on space. Honestly, I think her firm centrism during her Senate tenure helps her case out. I also think she's just much stronger in debates than Obama--and in the general election the debates hold much greater weight than in the primaries. She'd also be carrying a heavy female vote and women actually turn out, so do union voters; unfortunately for Obama, his strengths lie with the youth vote (flighty) and black voters in southern states. If McCain takes Huckabee with him, the south will go solidly Republican.

I definitely, definitely agree with you that McCain has a nasty streak, an extremely nasty streak. But I think Obama does too and comes out during debates--the "You're nice enough, Hillary" comment comes to mind. The media's an equal playing field as far as I'm concerned, though. One thing that hasn't been said, however, is while McCain may not explicitly go negative, other groups will against Obama--the Rezko situation, in particular could really hurt Obama in the media if it gets covered. Same with the cocaine of the youthful days--is COMPLETELY besides the point of the candidate he is today, but that doesn't mean it won't come up. McCain's a nasty guy, but he's been vetted and is a known quantity like Hillary.

I think the war is big, too, but I think the economy is going to play a bigger role as the election gets closer. Also, I think firming up the nomination for the GOP with the mass fall in with McCain by party elites (even those who have a mutual dislike for him--Bush, Romney) is big. McCain's patient enough, I think, to handle the momentum of that. McCain will have months to reinforce the conservative vote and appeal outward.

Thanks for commenting, Mike. -KMM

Submitted by MikeMaio on Fri, 02/08/2008 - 01:53.

Have to disagree

Clinton's primarily rationale for her candidacy - that she's experienced - will get blown away as soon as she has to confront McCain directly, and she'll have to pivot to something else. I don't think vapid slogans like "Ready on Day One" are generally very effective, but there's no way she can claim as much experience as McCain. Obama, by contrast, has made substantial efforts to make this election about generational change, and that theme will be all too obvious when he's standing on stage debating a 72 year old man. (By the way, I should add here that I am a bit more skeptical than most that McCain is a strong general election candidate. I think his age may hurt him some, and he seems like he could get tired as the campaign wears on. McCain has a pretty well-known mean streak, which was on display somewhat during his tired debate performance a couple weeks ago, and we could see him get crankier over time. That said, he has a better shot at winning that any of the other Repubs would have had.) Then there's the war. Considering a clear majority of the people in this country recognize that going into Iraq was a stupid f*%&ing idea, it can only help the Democrats to have a candidate who offers a clear contrast with McCain. (I think it's often overlooked that Americans, while tempermentally conservative, agree with mainstream Democrats on nearly every issue.) And finally the media. The only thing the mass media has a more difficult time concealing than its adoration for St. John of Arizona is its loathing of HRC. The difference in media treatment the two will get could very well tip this election; I think there's a strong case to be made that a similar dynamic helped Bush get within hanging chad distance of Gore in 2000. Obama, of course, tends to get positive coverage, which should negate the media's loving treatment of McCain.

Login or Register to leave comments.

COLUMN: McCain would beat Obama

The point is well taken (and

I think this is pretty clear:

I wanted to actually address

Have to disagree

Login or Register to leave comments.

Vanderbilt on Twitter

Popular Content