Posted on 09/10/2018 9:56:58 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
New York Times opinion writer Michelle Goldberg (on This Week) said President Obama should not be blamed for the losses endured by the party under his leadership because the party depended on him and thought he "had this" and thus did not mobilize.
(snip) ..."I mean that was less about kind of his – his own failures as a campaigner or the fact that his own speeches maybe weren’t up to par as it was a huge failure of party building, a sense that kind of Obama had this so people didn’t need to mobilize."
"It's not that Obama gave speeches in the past and Democrats lost seats, and therefore Obama shouldn’t give speeches. Right, I mean the party itself is mobilized and organized in a way that it just never was during Obama’s administration," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
“NYT Michelle Goldberg: Democratic Party Losses Not Obama’s Fault, Party’s Fault For Relying On Obama”
meaning what? that the party KNEW obama was a loser but let him campaign anyway? Sort of like nominating Hillary? Dem party putting too many losers in charge? ... whatever ...
Yeah, that's what happened with Hitlery too -- not her fault, it was the party's fault for not picking up even more of the tab for her various grifts.
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.