Obama's new argument

Up till now, Obama's general election argument has been that "the democratic party can only win by offering a clear contrast with John Mccain." Now that the race is sure to go on, I think he should shift this a little.

Let Hillary have the "democrats need to" argument and Obama can take the "America needs to" argument. A contrast with Mccain and a real debate about Iraq, foreign policy, and the economy are not just good for the democratic party, they are necessary in order for the country to move forward. Are we going to hedge our bets and continue the Bush policies or will we change direction? We have to make a decision and in order to do that the stakes need to be clearly outlined and a clear choice must be offered.

America needs this debate. Let that be the rallying cry going forward. Nominating Hillary would simply be kicking the can further down the road and preventing us from addressing the raw issues. He needs to become the issue candidate. Not the policy candidate, the issue candidate.

Another way to go would be to declare himself the responsibility candidate (although that would be a little similar to Mccain's theme tonight). He could call for the media and both campaigns to think about how the debate is affecting the general populace and whether it's a good thing to stir division, racial strife, and suspicion. He could call out gamesmanship, as other diarists have said, and demnad that it stop, not for his sake but for the people's sake. He could say that the candidates have a responsibility to concentrate on more than just winning.

Normally this kind of tact would amount to political suicide but I think that the delegate lead is big enough that it won't hurt him. And it certainly could help him in November.

•  how long has it been?

  before tonight, when was the last time senator clinton actually acknowledged a state she had campaigned in after the polls closed?

  by korhashamo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:19:38 AM PDT

•  According to MSNBC, 25% of Hillary's votes will

  go to McCain in the general.  I don't think they really have much interest in such definitions as "Democrat" and "Republican."

  I wish it were as simple as educating the voter base, but as long as this fight lasts, Hillary voters won't focus on the merits, they'll fight to defend their decisions regardless.

  by NotablyZen on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:48:45 AM PDT

  •  Either that or...

    We actually honestly disagree with you and the 2nd post Clinton change candidate and would rather have an honorable man, than one who thinks we need to be "educated" until we see things your way...

    by sonofdonkeykong on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:55:48 AM PDT

    •  McCain "honorable"?!?

      Tell that to the people being tortured in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.  McCain says he opposes torture, and he should -- he knows about it -- but when push comes to shove, he's lining up with Bush to suppress attempts to actually ban torture for good.

      If his votes matched his words on torture, I might believe you that he was "honorable".  But they don't.  

      by neroden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:58:44 AM PDT

    •  And what exactly do we disagree on?

      Obviously Obama supporters disagree with Hillary on the Iraq war and some points of foreign policy. My question is - do Hillary supporters really disagree with Obama on this issue? This is a case where he's running to the left of her.

      The health care debate is the opposite. It's one where (mandates aside) Obama supporters likely agree with Hillary and where she, to some degree, is running to the left of him.

      But other than those two issues, the only real thing seperating them is style. The Iraq/Foreign policy debate is enough for me to vote for him over her, but not her over Mccain. I would think it would be the same the other way around.

      So what is it?

      by Last Years Man on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:18:35 AM PDT

  •  Do we trust MSNBC?

    Why should we?

    by neroden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:56:01 AM PDT