Note to campaigns: stop saying nice things about McCain

March 29, 2008

OK, new rule for Democratic presidential campaigns: unhelpful praise for John McCain should, from now on, be off limits. Sure, the candidates may get along well with McCain, and McCain may be a nice guy to hang out with, but this is a partisan exercise and a zero-sum game.

As much as I love the Big Dog, there’s just no reason to make things easier on McCain with comments like these.

At a stop in rural Pennsylvania, over winding roads and through rolling hills in small Lewistown, PA, where people lined the streets to watch his motorcade approach, former President Bill Clinton had high praise for the man who has clinched the nomination for the other party.

Mr. Clinton said all three major candidates remaining in the race are talented and special people…. But McCain, who Mr. Clinton said is a “moderate”, “has given about all you can give for this country without dyin’ for it.”

He said McCain was on the right side of issues like being against torture of enemy combatants and global warming, which “just about crosses the bridge for them (Republicans).”

No, no, no. Assuming the quotes weren’t taken out of context — ABC News has screwed over Clinton with this before — Clinton’s comments were wrong on the merits, and the wrong strategic message.

Substantively, McCain isn’t a “moderate,” he doesn’t even claim to be a moderate. It’s a media myth that Dems are trying to knock down, not reinforce. As for McCain on torture and global warming, he’s let everyone down on both recently, as he’s moved further and further to the right. Dems need to remind people why McCain is wrong on these issues, not suggesting he may be right.

And strategically, having one of the leading Democratic candidate’s top surrogates complimenting McCain in a key battleground state really doesn’t seem like a good idea.

The entire trend lately has been discouraging. Hillary Clinton first praised John McCain’s experience, saying he was prepared to be president while suggesting Obama may not be. Soon after she said McCain passed her commander-in-chief test, while suggesting Obama did not.

McCain is playing for the other team. Raising his positives right now is the opposite of what Dems hope to do.

Hillary seemed to be on the right track on Thursday.

Clinton was asked by a questioner in the audience here what she would tell frustrated Democrats who might consider voting for McCain in the general election out of spite.

“Please think through this decision,” Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word “please.”

“It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country.” The crowd applauded loudly.

I agree, it wouldn’t be wise at all. But that’s all the more reason to avoid calling him a “moderate” who breaks with Republicans on key policy issues.

Here’s a tip to the campaigns: if you’re going to say something nice about McCain, do so in such a way as to subtly criticize him at the same time. For example, Barack Obama has, on a variety of occasions, called McCain “a genuine American hero who represents the politics of yesterday.”

You’re getting the nice part in there (genuine hero), while also staying on message (politics of yesterday).

McCain is poised to go to great lengths to tell voters he has a mainstream ideology and doesn’t always toe the party line. For Dems to help him make this case simply doesn’t make any sense.

I imagine it must be difficult for the Clintons to criticize McCheney, then have to sit next to him at the CFR meetings………….

  • Is it possible that Bill Clinton really does think McCain is a moderate? That’s been the netroots, progressive argument against Clinton this whole time (excepting the blogs which support Sen. Clinton). The Clintonian “third way,” triangulation, DLC type politics were always about moving the Democratic party to the center. So, assuming that the Democratic party Clinton always envisioned, and the government he ran, were in his eyes liberal, McCain, on some issues, does qualify as a moderate.

    My point is, is it possible that from where Clinton stands on an ideological level, he isn’t just bucking up McCain at the expense of Obama. Isn’t it possible he really does see McCain as a moderate voice in the Republican party?

    I hope not, but its possible.

  • When Bill Clinton talks like this about McCain he is affirming that CDS is a lie and that at best he was a mediocre President who never deserved the high place some Dems have placed him

  • A glance at the right-wing press prior to McCain’s sewing up the GOP nomination would provide tons of fodder for a Rove-like demolition of his greatest asset (being shot down). His military history prior to that isn’t all peaches cream. It’s more the story of a spoiled son and grandson of four-star admirals. His finishing fifth from the bottom of his USNA class of 899 doesn’t speak well of him either. Then there’s the S&L debacle. As to his maverick status, can you be more subservient than in the easily googled Bush III photo of “the hug”?

  • Kim, it actually doesn’t matter whether Clinton thinks McCain is a moderate or not. Both Clintons need to stop saying that sort of thing out loud to the press. It really isn’t a step towards that party unity she’s now proposing.

  • I think that Kim has a good point; i also think that Brandy has a good point too.

    I do wonder what a McCain administration would be like, freed from pandering to the base that hates him. But i’m not willing to find out.

    We should remember that Bill had a very difficult time not putting his foot in his mouth when he was president; he has a tendency to think out loud…like answering undecided foreign policy questions still sweating from a jog.

    But at this point, i’m not willing to give the Clintons the benefit of any more doubts. One’s saying (sort of) “don’t vote for McCain” while the other’s out there talking about how great he is. They’re trying to have it both ways. It is long past time that the Party elders put an end to this…i could live with a short leash, but the Clintons will just chew through it.

    End it, end it now…or get ready for defeat in November.

  • It’s comments like this one from the former president, and others of like tenor from the Clinton campaign, that will continue to cause lots of folks to believe that Clinton is now, at least in part, positioning herself for a run in 2012. Reinforcing McCain’s credentials does nothing to help her win the primary, but of course will be of substantial aid to McCain in the general.

  • So much for Hillary saying nobody should vote for McCain the other day and promoting “party loyalty.”

    Slick Willy has always been out for nobody else. I see his approval rating is even lower than hers now, so finally – 16 years too late – people are starting to see that what’s there is what was always there: the lies, the cheating, the conniving, the bullshit.

    Bill Clinton will be seen in history as the Least Democrat Ever. Can anybody remember one thing he actually did in his 8 years that would be something a Democrat would do???

  • “Barack Obama has, on a variety of occasions, called McCain “a genuine American hero who represents the politics of yesterday.”…” He could use the same phrase for Clinton, just drop the hero part…Hillary is a genuine American who represents the politics of yesterday… Bill is just trying to be a moderate centrist mouthing platitudes he doesnt mean or else he must have sustained a head wound…

  • The most damaging part of this is that Clinton is burnishing McCain’s so-called moderate credentials among the critical independents and more conservative Dems. It isn’t true, and there is possibly nothing he could say that would be more damaging. He’s helping McCain define himself to the American people in the most flattering light possible.

  • “Slick Willy has always been out for nobody else.”

    I’ve always thought that about him, Tom. Maybe this is his way of screwing everyone, including his wife simply because he’s not allowed to run?

  • You are the ones who think politics must always be nasty and that campaigning consists of saying as many bad things as possible about your opponents, as loudly as possible. No place in this election for careful consideration of a candidate’s past actions, stated views and proposed plans for action. It’s only about mud-slinging for you guys.

    There are sufficient differences between McCain’s programs, his past votes, and especially his support for the war, that Bill Clinton’s occasional nice remark isn’t going to switch anyone’s vote. You forget that long time politicians have all known each other for years, worked closely together on bipartisan issues and frequently like each other as individuals. This is especially true for Bill Clinton who seems to like everyone and amazingly does not hold grudges. They can and are cordial without negating any of their strong differences when it comes to policy. Bill Clinton even joined forces with Bush (41) to raise funds for the tsunami even though they ran against each other and have many strong disagreements as politicians.

    Obama has supposedly promised to unite people across the aisle. It is supposedly a strong part of his appeal to many voters. Why is the actual lack of animosity of the Clinton’s despised when they are doing nothing different than Obama himself has pledged to do? Obviously, for Obama, words are different than actions. No one seriously thinks Bill Clinton is campaigning for McCain. Is Obama really so insecure that he thinks acknowledging that there was a time when McCain wished to cross the aisle and become a moderate Democrat (because he was so out-of-place in the iron regime of the new conservative Republican party) would undermine his chances in November? Seems to me just reminding people of McCain’s views on Iraq should quickly put that to rest.

    But, anything to win, so pile on the Clintons again. No room for niceness here. No room for memory. Gotta hate, hate, hate them Republicans, even the ones who are seeking a refuge from conservatism. Gotta hate, hate, hate them Clintons, even when they say what everyone else already knows. A person who is generous enough to talk well of a political enemy should be a role model, not someone to despise. But the humanity seems to have gone out of this election, despite Obama’s false kumbaya phrases.

    Obama democrats can’t even get along with other democrats, so why should they appreciate a man who understands that you can disagree with someone without reviling him?

  • It is pretty obvious that the Clintons realize that Hillary won’t win this time so they want Obama to lose in a general election so she can run again in 2012. I think her and her husband have proven all they care about is fighting and winning at any cost. I personally am sick of that type of politics and I hope enough other Americans are too.

  • The Big Dog has certainly jumped the shark. He seems even less able to focus on reality than his wife is. The comments the other day about Hillary being “only behind by 16 pledged delegates if you only count primary states” were embarrassing to watch. Any minute he’s going to be telling us that in states with the letter K in them, Hillary’s not doing too badly, or if you only count Ohio, she’s actually winning.

    So sad to see the polls showing his enormously growing negative ratings. No one seems to be able to stop him from destroying his own legacy. He’s unswerving in his dead run toward that cliff edge.

  • Reading the last post and this one, I wonder aloud how Hon. Sen. McCain’s Veep choice will affect his chances. If he goes with a ‘moderate’ choice, the wingers might start to get nervous (with his age and all), but if he goes hard to starboard, won’t the comparisons highlight how not moderate he actually is?

  • This is especially true for Bill Clinton who seems to like everyone and amazingly does not hold grudges.

    Bwahahahaha…doesn’t hold grudges, that’s a good one Mary, that’s a good one. If you don’t bring enough to share, keep it at home.

    Tis true though, they certainly don’t seem to be holding grudges against the people like Scaiffe and Limbaugh who spent 8 years trying to destroy them.

    Tom, i agree wholeheartedly…i’ve thought that since 1993, and find myself sharing a laugh with conservative friends who wonder why liberals are just figuring this out now.

  • What war hero? A hero is someone who does something heroic. McCain barely made it through the academy, caused a lot of trouble and damage, and then he got himself shot down and captured. This is not your ideal soldier. He was a screw up and has never been too bright.

    The guys trying to get him elected are doing it precisely because he’s not too bright and be controlled.

    http://mediamattersaction.org/freeride/lobbyists/

  • Maybe Hillary can get the Democratic nomination and Bill can be McCain’s running mate, that way we get a Clinton in the White House for 4 more years regardless of people vote.

  • Bill campaigning for McCain. Wonderful. He can join the McCain team full-time after Hillary
    drops out. Lieberman looks like he can use a vacation.

  • I could go down the Bilderberg Group road here, but it’s a nice, sunny Saturday and I’d rather not spoil it.

  • The Clinton campaign wants to have it both ways? Shocking.

    Time for more Supers to follow Leahy’s lead. This is exactly why this race needs to be over now.

    The Clinton’s are traitors to everything except their own ambition.

  • McCain is an honorable man who supports an honorable war to free millions. Both democrats are liars and racists. Both would destroy our economy, increase undeserving handouts, and emboldent our enemies.

  • Let’s give credit where credit is due. Senator McCain answered the call. Whether that qualifies him to be president is a different question…bottom of the class doesn’t bode too well. Doesn’t surprise me after some of the statements he’s made lately. As for President Clinton’s statements, time will tell just how much influence, positive or negative, they’ve had on his wife’s campaign.

  • Two traitorous (to the Democrats) Clintons for the price of one. Hillary started out in politics as a Republican Goldwater Girl, and now, some forty-four years of “experience” later, she is cheerleading for the much “experienced” McCain. Heck of an “experience,” Hillary…

  • V Racer said:
    McCain is an honorable man who supports an honorable war to free millions.

    Let’s see..only a few hours of electricity a day, kids cant go to school safely, foreign soldiers kicking in my door at midnight scaring the crap out of my kids, bombs, bombs, bombs and religious zealots set free to impose their dogma on me and mine..thanks, but no thanks, I dont want that kind of “freedom”…

  • from “The Clinton Bet” at swimming freestyle:

    ” If Obama were to lose to McCain in November, some large number of Democrats will hold Clinton at least partially accountable for the reasons noted above: the damage to Obama caused by the long, nasty nomination campaign and the lack of time to effectively campaign against McCain. Democrats will be big time pissed at Hillary Clinton and she’ll lack any reasonable amount of support from Democratic voters in the 2012 primaries.

    She really is, at this point, betting the farm. If not successful, which seems increasingly likely, she may ruin whatever opportunities she has going forward.”

    http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com

  • They don’t care about the democratic party, they are acting like they want McCain to win the general election, assuming Obama is going to get the nomination. They would rather give us four more years of hell under a repuglican, just so they can make a run of it again in 2012. Screw Hilliary and Bill Clinton – and that goes for Chelsea too!

  • Looks like the Clinton campaign has lost its sense of direction… They no longer know which way they should swing the bat (Tonya Harding tactics) and which side they should play nice with. Perhaps Willie Wanker and McSame can retire together to some senior citizen facility where they’ll get all the Alzheimer treatment available, while the first lady comes to visit them both every second Sunday.

  • That’s right. We want Hillary and her number one fan, Bill to behave like Democrats by refraining themselves from heaping praise on their nemesis just because, at the moment, they can’t bear to see their own immediate rival, Obama doing well. Barack Obama has been running against these two Clintons from the day one and yet, he has been beating them so far. This goes to show that he really is a very capable man, even with this 2:1 situation. Can Hillary do same on her own? Do I even need to ask ?

  • Hey, check it out. It looks like that Hillary will actually lose California if a new primary is to take place there now, because the negative feeling against her is all time high. According to the recent statewide poll which was reported by the LA Times, 30% plus respondents said they had favorable feelings about her whereas 60% plus respondents said they had favorable feelings about Obama. This poll was taken after the speech so the impact of the Wright controversy was fully reflected in it. On the other hand, it was taken before Hillary’s lie (Oops, misspoke- is this even a proper word ?) about her Bosnian adventure became public. Now make you own intelligent and informed decision based on this and see how well this squares up with her claim that she wins big states. Talking of winning big states, it is still very much disputed that she actually won Texas, so she should refrain herself from claiming victory there. If anything, it appears that Obama won there.

  • We, Obama supporters request just two things from Hillary Clinton.

    1/ Please release the tax returns NOW, without doctoring them

    2/ Please come out and explain about your religious affilication with this cult
    FAMILY

    The way we see it, you and your fans have been making a mountain out of a molehill over this Wright controversy. OK, Wright has a big mouth and he should just shut the h**l up but it also looks that you have way biggers problems in your own closet which you are not willing to share with us. Come clean now, Hillary!

  • No, no, no!

    Stop doing this “benign” smearing of Hillary and Bill Clinton. You are doing precisely what the media does.

    The second point is this: Which one of the two “Democratic” candidates is the true-blue Democrat? We’ve been spun and spun on this idea that it’s Barack Obama. But, really, if you take out the Republicans and Independents who voted for him in primaries and caucuses, Hillary Clinton has garnered many more votes from Democrats.

    I don’t know about you, but I think it’s very troubling for a candidate of the Democratic Party to be selling off our values; I think it’s very troubling that Republicans and Independents are the ones making the determination about who will be our party’s (Democratic Party) nominee.

    Cluck all you want about how things in Washington need to “change.” I don’t want my party taken over by people who at heart have no interest in our longterm values and who will switch their votes in a second for a Republican. And frankly, in November, Independents will vote for John McCain, regardless of which Democrat is our nominee.

    Beware the B.S. that Barack Obama feeds you, the media and anyone who will listen about being a Democrat. It might not matter to you, but it matters to a hell of a lot of us who would rather not see our party coopted and turned into Republican-lite!

  • Why does the title say “campaigns” plural? I read through the whole thing waiting for the moment when the Obama campaign was shilling for McCain and, um, it’s not there!

    So, if there are instances, put ’em in there, and if there aren’t, can we switch it to “Note to Clintons”?!

    mabelle — Uh, how is praising a Republican helping the Democratic cause?

  • Mabelle – you are missing the point! No democrat should be praising a republican. We want the democrats to take back the white house in November. As much as I don’t like the way Hilliary and Bill are campaigning and didn’t vote for them in the MN. caucuses, I would vote for her in November if she would become the democratic nominee. It boils down to treason of all of us democratics who want the white house back, and being that Obama is looking like he may be that person, she should not be throwing the kitchen sink at him and acting like a spoiled brat who is not getting her way. By the way, what B.S. are you talking about that Obama and the media are throwing at us. I’m an intelligent person and don’t let the media make decisions for me. I do my homework and have researched the candidates. You don’t get it – No, No, No!!

  • “Which one of the two “Democratic” candidates is the true-blue Democrat?” -mabelle @ 33.

    Now, that is an interesting question. The answer depends upon your definition of “true-blue” and the value you attach to one who fits your definition.

    Myself, I’m pretty pissed at Dems like Pelosi and Reid, Murtha, Mikulski, Hoyer and a whole host of others who have proven incompetent in standing up against the excesses of this administration. Dems have lost the last two presidential elections while running against a vastly inferior candidate in contests they should have won by landslides. Dems have allowed themselves to be outplayed by the right wing noise machine in the public square, to the point that no one dare wear the label of liberal, despite it’s respectable heritage. We lose arguments against people who don’t even make sense, for god’s sake — in spite of the fact that on an issue-by-issue basis, the majority of Americans prefer liberal policies. The primary system Ds have come up with is just plain stupid, and having been given every possible advantage in the upcoming general, we’re fighting among ourselves with petty bitching about who insulted whom.

    So, if true-blue means establishment Dems like those we have, I don’t want a true-blue Democrat. I want someone who realizes the path we’ve been on is only going to lead to more of the same, and who has the guts and brains to try something more reasonable. Maybe Obama would turn out to be a lousy president — one never really knows. But a lot of people seem to be willing to give him a chance because they’re fed up with establishment “leaders” in both parties.

    If, on the other hand, true-blue means someone who stands for democratic principles — which would be my definition, Clinton fails so horribly Obama wins simply by default.

    • Comments are closed.