So we know a sitting U.S. senator will become the 44th president, something that the So we know a sitting U.S. senator will become the 44th president, something that the L.A. Times notes is rare and hasn’t happened since John F. Kennedy won almost a half-century ago. The real question, then, is how much their respective Senate records will matter in the election.
We've already seen how Hillary Clinton has characterized Barack Obama's rather short stint in the Senate as evidence of his unreadiness, and how Obama has used her fateful 2002 Iraq war vote to damage her. Ryan Lizza, then at The New Republic, long ago argued that the shorter the Senate career the better, which is why Obama was better served to run now rather than later, when he’d have more votes to explain. On the other hand, The Atlantic's Josh Green made an equally strong case (oft-reiterated by hubby Bill Clinton) that Hillary’s Senate experience speaks to her ability to negotiate and build coalitions necessary to actually govern.
As for the general election, keep in mind that John McCain has more years in the Senate than Clinton and Obama, combined. This could be either be a liability or asset, depending on how one considers the clear evidence that his voting record became increasingly moderate this decade—or at least until very recently. On the one hand, there are plenty of votes across his career that might be characterized as flip-floppy, such as McCain’s ever-evolving position on the Bush tax cuts; on the other, McCain can point to enough votes this decade that will satisfy swing voters.
With McCain, however, the larger issue—task, really—for Democrats is to point out his age indirectly by noting how long he has been a senator. As he and Clinton have been touting all along, experience matters. True enough. But experience in the Senate, at least historically, has mattered as a liability, not an asset.
--Tom Schaller
