Posted on 08/19/2008 11:53:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The mainstream media spent months ignoring the National Enquirer's scoop about John Edwards' mistress. Now they're ignoring a potentially bigger Democratic scandal: The political incompetence of Team Obama.
Sen. Barack Obama's brain trust of David Axelrod and David Plouffe emerged from the Democratic primary campaign with a reputation for strategic genius. That reputation is deeply entwined with the conventional wisdom among the political press that Obama is a sure thing to win in November.
Since Obama clinched the nomination in June, however, evidence has steadily accumulated that Axelrod and Plouffe -- who masterminded the Illinois Democrat's upset of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- are out of their league when matched against a Republican in a national election.
Two months ago, on the same day a Newsweek poll showed Obama ahead by 15 points, the Democrat debuted his own personalized presidential seal. That emblem, with its Latin translation of his "Yes, We Can!" motto ("vero possumus"), quickly became an object of derision, symbolizing the overconfidence of a campaign that now finds itself locked in a neck-and-neck contest with 75 days remaining until Election Day.
Not since Frank Mankiewicz and Gary Hart steered George McGovern to the nomination in 1972 has a Democratic presidential campaign committed such laughable blunders. With few exceptions, however, the media ignore the possibility that the Axelrod-Plouffe magic simply won't work against Republican Sen. John McCain.
And perhaps it was never magic at all.
THE ANALOGY TO the McGovern campaign is apt, because Hillary Clinton's status as the prohibitive favorite -- her nomination apparently inevitable a year ago -- so much resembled Sen. Edmund Muskie's position coming into the 1972 campaign. Hubert Humphrey's 1968 running mate, the "Man from Maine" went from sure thing to lost hope in a matter of weeks.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
This misses the issue, I think. It assumes that if he had good campaign managers, he would still be ahead. But Obama seems to me to be the problem, not his team. We haven't even started on his real negatives--noone in the general public knows anything about William Ayers, noone knows he has embraced a forged birth certificate as authentic, noone knows that he has flat out lied about the Live Birth Act, noone knows that his most difficult decision (his "vote" on the Iraq war) NEVER took place. He wasn't in the Senate then! The Illinois legislature did not vote to authorize the war. And on and on.
The best campaign team in the world can put lipstick on a pig. But it's still a pig.
And everything that comes out of his mouth is an Oink!
I didn't know that. Perhaps because he's so obviously a sleazeball phony, I change channels whenever he's being discussed.
I think the point is that both his campaign and his candidacy are overrated.
I’ve felt that way from the very beginning. People were scared of him because he beat Hilary, but in my opinion Hilary was a terrible candidate all along, she was built up by the media. He won because of how awful she was, not because of how great he was.
Bottom line is that the Democrats were dumb enough that their final two fighting for the nomination were both unelectable candidates, Hilary because of Clinton fatigue and overall negatives, and Obama because he has no substance. Him being black does not really help him because any Democrat will get 90+% of the black vote, and there are more blue collar white Democrats that would hesitate to vote for a black president than everyone is willing to discuss openly.
If McCain doesn’t screw it up he should win handily in November.
The Presidential election is decided by votes. It is not a caucus, but if it were, Obama would probably win.
That’s how they won the RAT nomination, the caucuses, pure and simple.
It’s not the messenger(s) it’s the message.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
But they will not eat that crow. They will blame it all on cheating and lies and chicanery and racism. And they will be right. The Democrat cheating and lies and chicanery and racism will have been major contributors to the loss.
Wow the Spectator finally got around to comparing Fauxbama to McGovern... Welcome to the party guys, I beat you by several months, but welcome anyway.
Uh-bama has been going downhill since Super Tuesday.
He barely limped across the finish line to be the presumptive nominee.
Conclusion: The more he is seen and heard, the more he loses.
“But Obama seems to me to be the problem, not his team.”
Correct. The problem with Obama is that he has the credentials to win the nomination, not the general election ...
- he is a left-liberal
- he was not in Washington when the Iraq war vote was taken, so was not ‘besmirched’ with a pro-war vote and an ‘anti-war’ rhetoric, that got Hillary tangled up.
These 2 things won him the nomination, since he won with a combo of black votes and white progressive anti-war voters.
The people who nominated Obama were the ones who thought nothing was wrong with Rev Jeremiah “Good damn America” Wright, or ex-terrorist William Ayers, or Obama giving drivers licenses to illegals, etc.
Obama’s version of “Mission Accomplished”? Audacious indeed.
“Two months ago, on the same day a Newsweek poll showed Obama ahead by 15 points, the Democrat debuted his own personalized presidential seal. That emblem, with its Latin translation of his “Yes, We Can!” motto (”vero possumus”), quickly became an object of derision, symbolizing the overconfidence of a campaign that now finds itself locked in a neck-and-neck contest with 75 days remaining until Election Day.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.