tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7995844097721113897..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The accidental candidateRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78171587016844789182008-01-04T23:51:00.000-05:002008-01-04T23:51:00.000-05:00Obama is a better candidate than Clinton in some w...Obama is a better candidate than Clinton in some ways. He comes across as more sincere, he doesn't have the negative associations with Bill Clinton, he's a better speaker, etc. But both are significantly liberal and inexperienced. McCain has some problems, but the contrast between McCain and Obama or Clinton would be stark, especially on issues of foreign policy. Huckabee is the best communicator among all of the candidates in both parties, and he comes across as sincere, but he wouldn't be as strong as McCain on issues like national defense and foreign policy. Either one would be better than Romney or Giuliani.<BR/><BR/>Obama hasn't been scrutinized much yet. Any of the five leading Republicans would be able to effectively criticize Obama as a liberal, which his Democratic opponents haven't been doing. Some of the Republicans, especially McCain, would also be able to effectively criticize Obama as inexperienced. Clinton and Edwards haven't been able to effectively criticize him much on issues of experience, since they don't have much experience themselves. The contrast between Obama and McCain on military and foreign policy issues would be devastating. I think that Obama currently has a lot of shallow appeal, the sort that you see at an Oprah rally and that wouldn't hold up well in next fall's debates and ad campaigns that mention mushroom clouds and Osama bin Laden. Think of the recent television ads run by McCain and Giuliani, and imagine them including references to Obama's inexperience and missteps.<BR/><BR/>Obama is a stronger candidate than Clinton. But going up against a Republican after the Republicans have united around a candidate is much different from going up against Clinton and Edwards. It would be more difficult for Obama to speak in vague terms and give speeches like the ones he's been giving lately if he's continually being criticized and asked questions about his liberalism and inexperience. Obama isn't as weak as Clinton, but he has some significant problems that would become much more visible in the future than they are now.<BR/><BR/>A lot of emphasis has been placed on voter disgust with the Republicans. Given the fact that the Republicans have already been punished in the 2006 election, the fact that there's so much disgust with the Democratic Congress, the fact that the Republican candidate won't be part of the Bush administration, and the fact that an individual Republican can so easily be distinguished from the party as a whole or some negative element of it, I doubt that voter disgust with the Republicans will be as much of a factor as many people are suggesting. I still think that the Republicans have the advantage as far as the presidency is concerned.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85160853798489904692008-01-04T22:06:00.000-05:002008-01-04T22:06:00.000-05:00www.ronpaul2008.comYour pro-life pro-constitution ...www.ronpaul2008.com<BR/><BR/>Your pro-life pro-constitution answer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com