I think McCain has a national security deficit. In fact I just exposed him lying today about the war on my blog. Check it out and take the "Is McCain a liar or just incompetent poll":

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/mccain-not-so-strong-on-current-events.html

??? The NRCC Chair has bad things to say about the presumptive Dem nominee, well color me suprised. What do Karl Rove and Dick Cheney think about Obama now that they know they will be running against him? Do tell... That should help us asses the situation better.

As opposed to McCain's Foreign Policy Attention Deficit.

Too bad the election is also going to be about the economy, which McCain says he knows nothing about.

And I think its interesting that on the two things everyone has jumped on Obama for, he has turned out to be correct. The Iraq War, and targeted attacks on Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan.

The best argument against the Republicans this year is to point out that every 4 years they scare the hell out of us, get elected, and then do nothing to make us safer while absolutely destroying the economy...

Never thought I'd see the day where Republicans, Fox News, and Scaife would be propping up Hillary..

I have to agree with Tom Cole. People are too busy looking at the current polls which show Obama running slightly better than Hillary against John McCain. But that is foolish, because Barack Obama is a gigantic unknown. The truth is both candidates are so bad that the Dems have probably largely blown this election already. They just don't know it yet.

True. Obama is a radical liberal and a fraud.

"Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign was quick to send out an e-mail accusing Mr. Obama of making false statements in his ad, saying he has received more than $160,000 from the oil and gas companies. Phil Singer, deputy communications director for Mrs. Clinton, put out this statement: "It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. Senator Obama says he doesn't take campaign contributions from oil companies, but the reality is that Exxon Mobil, Shell and others are among his donors. I wonder if they'll fix the ad."

Another lie to add to "dembillc"s list.

I couldn't care less what anyone says about electability. I'm not putting my vote in for a proven phony like Hillary. It's a matter of principle.

is this that reverseable psychomocology i'm always hearing about?

Oh please. Hillary "Sniper fire" Clinton vs. a former POW, veteran, and long-time national security guy on national security? The contest would be a joke. I still think Hillary would win, but at least Barack Obama doesn't have any made up national security credentials.

I can only hope that the GOP remains this delusional throughout the campaign.

No joke: "Republicans want to run on their one strength" I think this says less about Obama and more about the republican chances in the fall.

The same Tom Cole who spend $1.2 million losing Denny Hastert's seat? Yeah, I'm sure he's chock full of keen political insights.

Tom Cole, I fear, is employing an analysis better suited to the 2002 or 2004 elections than the 2008 one. I am quite happy about this for what it says about the NRCC's likely strategic missteps this cycle. The strong and wrong position does not have quite the same draw as it once did. Hillary is too close to McCain to get any clean shots on him. Obama is fighting the entire way of thinking that got us into the war. Cole says Hillary would be stronger because she can Republican-lite better (i.e. "plausible commander-in-chief"). I think he underestimates the success with which Obama will challenge the entire paradigm. I suspect that the demise of "surge is working" storyline will coincide nicely with a tanking economy to make running ant-Washington establishment a winning proposition in the fall.

It is interesting that he has decided to pick up Clinton's commander-in-chiefiness meme and run with it. That "he's well to the left of her" meme is also interesting. It would be very hard to substantiate (their policy proposals are barely a hair's bredth apart, and the one noteworthy difference - her insurance mandate - actually puts him slightly to the right of her), but I notice that her supporters on this board (see Gotalife above, for instance) make a great deal of him being a "radical" and her being a "moderate."

Evidently the Republican's are not so stupid as not to notice the gifts they are being handed on a silver platter.

National Security Deficit. The Republicans are running a guy who needs Joe Lieberman to remind him which set of bad guys are being armed by Iran, a guy who can't remember which groups are Sunni and which are Shia. And the Democrats are supposed to be scared about a national security deficit.

Yeah. You run with that theory, Mr. Cole.

this is news?

Why?

The Chairman of the NRCC doesn't think Obama, a democrat, has the credentials to be president?

I'm shocked...completely shocked that a partisan republican would tow the party line when it comes to Obama.

Well, just last week TPM has polls showing Hillary doing better against McCain then Obama, but that's all beside the point.

I have never understood why anyone would believe a Republican saying I would rather run against one candidate over another. I mean, they aren't trying to give us real advice, are they? Seriously, if a Republican gave me election advice, I would do the opposite, most likely, in expecation that the Republican was LYING!!!

Now, I have made it quite clear I am a Clinton supporter, but that doesn't mean I think our decision on who to nominate should be based on this sort of ephemera which is the the electoral equivalent of reading the entrails of a goat.

Both nominees will have a tough campaign despite running against the the oldest candidate to ever run, a man whose made a career about whining about corruption while acting in the same corrupt manner (reminiscent of Nixon's "if the president does it, it's not a crime' argument), whose a war-mongering imperialist whose love for war outstrips our current little napoleon, a right-winger on choice and many other social issues, but because he's got a charming grin, a sparkle in his eye and he kisses journalistic ass, will have the most favorable press coverage of any president ever.

Any nominee will face the "how dare you run against St McCain phenom" despite St McCain's dirty fingers in the Keating 5 and since, despite his anti-choice fanaticism, despite his love of war and death. Whoever it is, it's someone who can deal with not being loved by the press.

The "national security deficit" is what the Republicans have been using to run against the Democrats since 2002. It's not working anymore. In 2006 the Republicans "drew a contrast" with the Democrats on national security, and they lost anyway. Voters appear to have other things on their mind than just national security issues at this point, and when they do consider national security issues there have been a number of polls lately indicating they trust the Democrats more on this issue. This is not an issue the Democrats should be hiding from the Republicans on at this point. All indications are that the Democrats should want to draw contrasts with the Republicans on this issue, because at this point the clearer those contrasts are the better the Democrats do.

With this in mind, the question to be asking here isn't whether Tom Cole is doing some weird reverse-psychology freakout thing here; the question is whether, given the NRCC's idea of what constitutes a "plausible commander in chief" and those polls indicating voters consider the Democrats more credible on national security issues at this point, a candidate falling within Tom Cole's conception of a "plausible commander in chief" is a good thing or a bad thing from the democratic perspective...

The Clinton Presidential Pardons.

Do not forget that last great spasm of Clinton corruption as they were leaving the White House.

Why has Hillary not been asked about that.

Her Brothers lived with her, and were paid hundreds of thousands by convicted drug lords in an effort to purchase Presidential Pardons.

Marc Rich bought a Presidential Pardon while on the run from Justice.

Ask Hillary about that, Media. Do your job.

Democrats shouldn't listen to what these slapdick Republicans say anyway. They are slappys, all of them.

Getting Hillary the Democratic nomination is at the top of the Republican agenda. Not hard to guess why.

i would argue you guys are so entrencehed in your feelings for OBAMA you are not seeing what the average joe is. i have said all along forget the sniper fire BS because if dodging sniper fire make your natioanl security credentials stronger i would have to laugh. what i did see in that video was someone way more involved in national security than OBAMA.

because people are so blinded to their candidate mccain will walk right through that reality gap.

Man, this just means Obama will make even bigger waves the first time he debates McCain and makes him look like an idiot.

It is interesting that he has decided to pick up Clinton's commander-in-chiefiness meme and run with it.

And did you notice that in McCain's recent ad, he's standing in front of a banner that says "Ready On Day One" about halfway through?

What you said about silver platters.

Principle, huh?

Which "principles" has Hillary espoused? For that matter, just when has she "proven" herself?

what's wrong with being a peacenik? (other than it's a pejoritive term for something quite good) I thought we were against the 100, (hell, 10,000) year war?

I have growing suspicion that gotalife is Scalia himself.
Coming back to the topic of the story, today McCain was saying that he was surprised by the development of the recent events in Iraq. It sound to me like another version of "Who could expect the breaking of the levees".

Honestly- one question;

Why is this news? Who decides this should be a major link on the front page?

In a higly unlikely scenario: when a democrat calls a republic more qualified for C-in-C than her fellow democratic- that's news.

But when a republican calls a loosing democraet better candidate than a winning democrat- why does this given such prominence?

But he's ideologically well to the left of Hillary Clinton

Didn't Romney run the same ad against McCain?

I think democrats have a innate wuss factor. Why do we even care what Cole says, let alone feeling jittered?

Well that's it then, isn't it? Top Republicans think that Hillary would be a tougher candidate so let her have it. Ignore the Democratic voters, they don't know shit, Republicans have our best interests at heart, so I'm switching over to Hillary.

Seriously, who gives a flying fuck what this Republican asshat says? Isn't time Democrats stop listening to the bullshit and pick whose best for the party.

Oh, and let's not for get that Mellon Scaif is on Hillary's side as well, hell if she can win over the man who tried for eight years to bring down her husband she has the bipartisan cred, right?

Of course some folks might take issue with the fact that she is sitting down with someone who called her, Chelsey and Bill some pretty vile things, and who promoted some very outlandish conspiracy theories about Hillary and Vince Foster, and who PAID Arkansas highway patrolmen for their "testimony" in the Paula Jones thing, but hey, an endorsement is an endorsement, right?

National Security deficit? What about the $3 TRILLION Iraq War deficit? Keep focusing on the costs, costs, costs of our national "security" - in lives, in dollars, in distortion of priorities. Stop running away from the issue! Bury them with their own issue.

"These are not the droids you're looking for."

"Oh. OK. Worth thinking about."

"Oh, please, please don't throw me in that briar patch..."

Hillary's candidacy is the gift that keeps on giving---to the Republicans. They are a party adrift, bereft of ideas, without any kind of real leadership, with a nominee hated--even despised--by their most loyal voters. Drubbed in 2006, they are bracing for another round of Congressional ass-whippins.

Only one thing can energize their moribund voters: Hillary. They stand no chance against Obama and they've known it since day one.

cheers,

DD

Are Republicans afraid Obama will pull troops out of Iraq and destroy Bush's "benchmark success" goal of privatizing Iraq's oil? Why would people still support McCain? Even Republicans? If I were a Republican or independent I would definitely vote Obama, or even Clinton. No wonder Obama has gotten their votes.

How can you still support Bush and the Republicans after he/they lied to the American people, is in the process of breaking this country's bank, our economy is going downhill, people are loosing their homes, has a policy of dividing Iraq and propping up leaders which are unpopular with the people of Iraq, has destroyed the country of Iraq etc.

The Bush Administration has done little on national security. The Bush Administration has made it more dangerous for our troops in this and other conflicts by throwing the Geneva Convention out the window and breaking with our allies. Colin Powell, a 4 star general whose actually served in the military can tell you.

What is McCain going to do that is any different? People want change. Yes he stood up on torture etc. but the man is a Bush-lite, in the sense that we need to CHANGE DIRECTION or ASK FOR DIRECTIONS!

Shoot, there's the answer to our split-party woes, lets let the Republicans pick for us.

Reports of our split are highly exaggerated. But at least it is nice to know they care.

(CNN)— A new poll finds a majority of Republicans and Democrats feel Sen. Barack Obama would be a tougher candidate against the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in a potential fall match-up.

In a Gallup poll released Monday, 59 percent of Democratic voters believe Obama has the best chance at beating John McCain. Thirty percent said Clinton was more likely to win a matchup with the Arizona senator.

Republicans surveyed say Clinton would be the easiest to beat: 64 percent said Clinton would make a weaker fall opponent for McCain, while just 22 percent said Obama.

Oh yeah, Tom Cole would be giving Dems good advice on how to win, yeah, totally!

Horrible, horrible article.

"We also often hear, of course, that Hillary would do more damage to down-ticket Dem Congressional candidates. So it's plausible that Cole, who oversees House GOP candidates, has a reason for saying this. "

Really Eric? You think it's plausible?

I think it's damn likely, especially considering polls like S-green mentioned above.

Jeez, how hard is it for people who are PAID to do some research around here, instead of leaving it to us to do your research for you?!?

But he's ideologically well to the left of Hillary Clinton, for all his rhetorical gifts, and I also think he's got a national-security deficit.

Yeah! Obama is a lefty -- did you see him bowling? Uses left hand.

National security deficit? Yeah, no one should mention the confusions McCain’t has been repeatedly displaying...

The Repukes have gotta come up with something better every four years other than "yer candidate is soooo librul".

Really.

Of course Obama is easier to run against in Nov.

Did anyone ever think otherwise?

well, probably either Clinton or Obama win over McCain, but I do think that at some point the "I came in my pants because Obama is so eloquent" schtick will start to wear thin. I was talking with a colleague yesterday, a very silly Iowa boy who is very religious, Republican, and and an ardent believer in creationism, and he was telling me how he plans to vote for Obama. And I saw how much the Obama vote is the gullible, sically taking a naive vote. This guy really couldn't articulate why he planned to vote for Obama, just that he thought Obama would make America a better country. I don't particularly like her, but Clinton really is the most competent candidate in this race. McCain has been around the block att least. Man, if you guys elect Obama you're basically jumping off a cliff with a parachute packed by an affirmative action baby. Good luck!

It's credible news when the GOP continues to play games with trying to handicap the Dem. Nomination process?