Video: McCain knows “Obama is inexperienced”

McCain was down in Florida getting cozy with Governor Charlie Crist and talking Cuba when reporters asked him about Obama:

That’s going to be McCain’s trump card throughout the campaign should Obama be the nominee. In fact, because of that reason, I think the most logical step for the Democrats is to create a Clinton/Obama ticket. Yes, that’s correct, I think the Democratic Party would be best off running Hillary as President and Barack as Vice President if they’re going against McCain.

It’s issues like this where I think Obama would lose to McCain. I think most voters would agree more with McCain that Cuba has been repressive and we shouldn’t just extend an open invitation with no preconditions as Obama has advocated.

What do you all think?

  • Experience is indeed a strong qualification McCain may will certainly continue to trumpet, but that same experience is a double edged sword when it comes to Iraq.

    While many moderates recognize the reality of our obligation to both the Iraqi people and our own national security, they hold the initial reasoning employed as justification for the original invasion as fatally flawed. John McCain, experinced though he may be, continues to justify the necessity of a WMD free invasion of IRAQ.

    Additionally, in his effort to court the far-right and the center-left simultaneously, repeatedly shoots himself in the foot. Warmly embracing uber-bigot John Hagee, accepting his endorsement, and refusing to explicitly repudiate any specific Hagee stance will not sit well with those moderates enamored with the idea of a “straight talking” maverick.

  • I do not think that this will be McCain’s trump card by any means during the election. In his comments McCain said he would sit down with the “freely” elected leader of Cuba if certain conditions were met (ie. political prisoners, human rights organizations in Florida [Though I am not sure how much that has to do w/ anything]). This is really the same response Obama has given; during one of the last two debates this issue came up and Obama said virtually the same thing… that he would met w/ Castro if there were steps taken before hand and preparations made, and one of those was begining to free the political prisoners. So the issue is the exact language: requirements met, pre-conditions, or preparations,… it is all semantics and none of it matters. With this issue, Clinton and Mac are trying to paint Obama as some flake who is gonna wake up one morning and decide that he wants to fly to Cuba, Iran or any other enemy and make peace, and then wa la it will happen. This ridiculous assertion and ultimately is a waste of time (look how far it has gotten Hillary). With regards to Cuba, Mac and Clinton are way off base to begin with because a majority of Americans, democrat and republican, support shift in American policy towards Cuba and have for quite a long time… evidence to my point (R) Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchsion was on Fox radio Austin, TX on March, 4th, and said that American policy had to change towards Cuba, and that it had been pretty much a failure up to this point. A second and final point is this: If McCain beleives that Cuba has to meet these pre-conditions he laid out, and that he has to meet with a freely elected leader, how does he feel about George Bush’s buddying up with Putin or King Abdullah or Fahd, or his meeting w/ Pervez Musharraf, Yasser Arafat or any of the other non-freely elected, repressive heads of state over the last 8 years?… is that not kind of part of the job? Is our country and our Presidency so fragile that it will just collapse and become impotent if we talk to our enemies face to face every once in a while?

  • Tahler

    With McCain as the nominee, national security is the terrain that Republicans will play on. We saw it in 2004 and we’ll see it again in 2008. Democrats know that. Winning in November means defeating John McCain and it is not only legitimate but essential for Hillary to make the case that she is the Democrat who can stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain on national security.