Dems say Hillary is scary

Al Hunt:

To appreciate Hillary Clinton's fundamental political problem, consider the 11 Democrats from Philadelphia who gathered last week to discuss the U.S. presidential race, almost all of whom would vote for her in a general election.

The focus group was moderated by an expert on such forums, Democratic pollster Peter Hart. The participants were informed and enthusiastic about their party's prospects, had no interest in the Republicans or third-party candidates, and were about equally balanced between front-runners Clinton and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

When Hart pushed the group during a two-hour conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of the two candidates, a different picture emerged.

Obama, they worried, can't win the nomination; voters aren't ready for an African-American president (a point expressed most directly by the two black women participants), and he may not be sufficiently experienced.

A couple of victories in Iowa and New Hampshire would cure most of those problems.

The concerns about Clinton, 60, a New York senator, are that she is devious, calculating and, fairly or not, a divisive figure in American politics.

Those are a lot tougher to overcome.

It was revealing, too, when Hart pushed them to envision these senators as leaders of the country or, as he put it, their ``boss.'' Obama, they say, would be inspirational, motivating, charismatic and compassionate. After praising Clinton's experience and intelligence, they say she would be demanding, difficult, maybe even a little scary.

...

Note how Hunt slips in the "fairly or not" to soften the description the group had for Hillary. That is how liberal bias creeps into to stories. The criticisms have the punches pulled. When Republicans are praised on the other hand there is always a caveat about how these accomplishments were in spite of the mistakes made by the Bush administration etc.

But what really stands out for me is the characterization of Obama. These Democrats have missed his central weakness. He is dead wrong on Iraq and has been from the start. The kooks in the Democrat party may think that is a strength and Hunt probably falls into that group since he doesn't mention it. His misreading of the importance of winning in Iraq is what disqualifies him for the Presidency. It is why he should lose the election if nominated.

What Hunt and the rest of the Democrat party do not understand is how important winning in Iraq is to avoiding future conflicts. They seem to think that Iraq was a mistake that should have been avoided, but the reality is far different.

The real merit to our win in Iraq is the demonstration that the US can defeat insurgency warfare. This is hugely important. All our potential adversaries know they cannot defeat the US in a conventional war. What they have been hanging their hopes on is that they can defeat us in an insurgency. It is what gives their resistance to agreements hope. Democrats have been feeding that hope with their desperation for our defeat in Iraq. You win wars by making your adversary believe his cause is hopeless. Democrats like Obama have been doing the opposite. They seem to think you can win agreements by carrots alone.

Hillary is not the only scary candidate in this field, but you can count on one thing. Whoever wins the Democrat nomination will be trying to convince voters that their Republican adversary is the scary one.