Campaign '08

WASHINGTON (AP) ― They say this will be a "Democratic year." Many pundits predict that Republicans will lose the White House because President Bush is unpopular, the economy is in a tailspin, the Iraq war is unabated and a plurality of voters identify themselves as Democrats.

This is silly talk. The truth is that if Democrats do win the White House, it won't be because of voters' generic impressions of the two parties. It will be because the Democratic nominee _ most likely Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama _ proved to be a better candidate than the GOP nominee.

And that's not a given. Democrats could just as easily lose the presidential race as win it.

The latest evidence in the case against Democratic inevitability came Tuesday night in a raucous debate that brought out the worst in both Clinton and Obama. Republican strategists could use the transcript to write their talking points for the fall election: Liberal, corrupt, evasive, hypocritical and soft on security.

Obama struck first during a scuffle over who is most concerned about the needs of low-income Americans. "While I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas," Obama told Clinton, "you were a corporate lawyer on the board at Wal-Mart."

Clinton, reacting to Obama's discussion about GOP ideas, struck back by saying, "I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, (Tony) Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago."

Rezko is an indicted businessman with whom Obama entered into a land deal several years ago, hardly the resume point of a self-styled government reformer.

The Wal-Mart and Rezko remarks were both accurate and fair game. But the same couldn't be said about every statement Tuesday night.

Clinton, for example, said Obama had talked about "admiring Ronald Reagan" and GOP ideas from the past 10 to 15 years. That's not quite what Obama said. In fact, Obama told an editorial board last week that Reagan had "changed the trajectory of America" in a way that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton had not. "He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it."

No matter what you may think of Reagan, it can't be disputed that he was a transformational figure, for better or worse.

Clinton herself spoke glowingly of Reagan in Tom Brokaw's new book, "Boom!," in which she is quoted as saying, "When he had those big tax cuts and they went too far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully."

If she wins the Democratic nomination, Republicans may want to produce an ad from this exchange on Iraq:

MODERATOR: " ... Are you looking to end this war or win it?"

CLINTON: "I'm looking to bring our troops home ... ."

Her promise to start withdrawing troops within 60 days of the inauguration may rest well with Democratic voters and many war-weary independents today. But how would it play in October if she is cast as a defeatist? The point is, we don't know.

Obama is vulnerable on Iraq, too. Claiming his opposition to the war in 2002 was a matter of principle over politics, Obama said, "It was not smart for me to oppose the war at the start of this war, but I did so because it was the right thing to do."

While Obama deserves credit for predicting much of the negative postwar fallout, his opposition to the invasion wasn't exactly an act of courage. At the time, he was running for the Democratic Senate nomination and seeking to build a coalition among blacks and so-called lakefront liberals in Chicago, hardly a pro-war constituency. His rivals for the nomination also would criticize the war, and polls suggested that Illinois voters were uncomfortable with an invasion.

Republicans take note of this, too: Clinton hit close to the bone when she called Obama slippery ("You never take responsibility for any vote") and lacking in substance (voters must make a distinction "between words and action").

And Obama wasn't out of line when he accused the Clintons of distorting his record and playing political games.

"Consistency matters," Obama said. "Truthfulness during campaigns makes a difference."

Smart and careful Democrats know that while their party has many advantages, the playing field will soon be mostly leveled.

"As volatile as the economy is and as volatile as the war is, who knows who will win once it's one of ours against one of theirs?" said Democratic strategist Dane Strother.

The fratricide continued Tuesday, when Clinton called a news conference to belittle Obama.

"I think what we saw last night was that he's very frustrated," she said. "He clearly came _ he telegraphed it, he talked about it _ he clearly came last night looking for a fight."

Get used to it, Democrats. The GOP will soon have its nominee, and the fight may not be as lopsided as you think.

(© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)