Posted on 02/24/2008 7:21:28 PM PST by markomalley
Media watchers have been asking themselves since Barack Obama became the front-runner to win the Democrat nomination for president when the press will turn against him and start treating the junior senator from Illinois like a candidate instead of a rock star.
The worm might have turned on Sunday's "This Week," when, as my colleague Brad Wilmouth reported, Cokie Roberts actually used the feminist card to trash Obama for Hillary's sake.
Almost as tasty, about three minutes later, a discussion about how Obama is beatable as the Democrat candidate began with Cokie saying (video available here, relevant section begins at minute 12:30):
I mean, you look at these numbers, and you still see lots of landmines, not in necessarily, in the nomination, but in the general election. I mean, you start looking at young voters, are they going to show up? Probably not. They never have before. By the time November comes, they'll be tired. They'll have heard it all. You look at Independents, they're the least likely people to vote. I mean, you have all these groups that are not necessarily going to show up...You wonder if the enthusiasm is going to hold through November.
This led to a discussion about Michelle Obama's comments earlier in the week, and an extended conversation about problems that her husband is going to have in the general election if he wins the nomination.
In particular, host George Stephanopoulos talked about Obama's vulnerabilities:
Number one, that he comes off as someone that is a little aloof, not someone that really cares about people in his bones. And secondly, that he will be accused of being a reflexive liberal despite all this talk about him being a bipartisan healer.
George Stephanopoulos, while the cameras were rolling, actually called someone a liberal? Are you kidding me?
Oddly, that mightn't have been as shocking as Ron Brownstein's response (LA Times):
Among kind of a blue-collar America where experience counts more, where national security may count somewhat more in a traditional way that Republicans kind of play it, you can, you can imagine an opportunity for John McCain to win in particular a lot of the white, waitress moms that Bush won in 2004 around security issues who have not voted for Obama in this campaign. And, that is, you could see, for example, an Obama who could be a very strong candidate in Virginia, a Colorado, an affluent state, but have a lot of trouble in some of these interior states that are economically troubled.
Stephanopoulos agreed: "The Reagan Democrats who have gone to Clinton go back to McCain."
So did Roberts: "I think that's right."
Is this a foreshadowing of things to come when and if Obama wins the nomination? Only time will tell.
Pot, meet kettle.
Obama is having the worst luck of someone on a winning streak right now...no games to play for a long stretch.
Hillary is going to do her best to slice and dice him for the nest 8 days. In the debate this Tuesday we should see some fireworks.
I think the media is going to take one last, cold, hard look at Obama for their Ice Princess.
Lets finish off hillarybeast first:-()
NONONONONONONONONO!!!!
Stop the Clintons now by any means available.
Snuffy’s back
“Stop the Clintons now by any means available.”
Stop the Clintons by supporting a true believer Marxist with a cult following?
Are you nuts?
My objective is to keep the Hillary-Obama catfight going as long as possible, preferably all the way to the convention and even beyond. I will vote for the underdog in the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary.
But the Clintons are smart enough and sleazy enough to pivot back to the center if they win the nomination. Obama is a proud Marxist, and he won't run away from that. After the nation gets over the novelty of Obama, the voters will rightly reject him in the fall. Same thing happened with Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern. Every time the Dems nominate a proud liberal, it's the same old story. It's the principle-free types like the Clintons that you have to worry about.
Are you nuts?”
Hillary is just as much, or more or a socialist, and she has her own cult following. She is immensely more dangerous to this nation than Obama.
“Obama is a proud Marxist, and he won’t run away from that. After the nation gets over the novelty of Obama, the voters will rightly reject him in the fall.”
You’re far too confident. McCain is an extremely unlikeable guy who STILL delights in poking the very people who needs most energized in the eye.
I think it best to sweat both the democrappers. Each has the potential to extinguish all and any semblance of Constitutional framework of governance. Forget the 2nd amendment and watch for mass deportation of white males. Wholesale abortions and lynchings of those previously opposed.
National defense forces will consist of a beefed-up Peace Corps legal counsel brigade and Hitlary Youth SS.
A BraveNew World awaits.
natio
“Hillary is just as much, or more or a socialist, and she has her own cult following. She is immensely more dangerous to this nation than Obama.”
Hillary just wants power. Obama is a True Believer.
It isn't just the ideology which makes the Clintons dangerous - it is their capability, their established contacts, and their hold-over army of acolytes embedded throughout every federal department (from DoD, to State, to the FBI and CIA) and local jurisdictions. The State Department especially is infested with loyal 'Toon subjects.
Obama will try to destroy America (from scratch), but will almost assuredly fail. He is not qualified or prepared for office, and when it comes to a Democrat, that is a good thing. Clinton has the best shot of succeeding; she has an ex-president as her co-president, knows the score, has the people, and owns the dirt on thousands of string-pullers. Don't be stupid - don't waste an ounce of effort on Obama before the witch is toast (and then make sure she is toast again). They have been preparing and greasing for almost a decade in power, and almost a decade out of power. Don't give them another near-decade to bring their efforts to fruition.
Precisely. Actually, Hillary is very much an ideologue. She just hails from the Saul Alinsky school of “the ends justifies the means” and she will do or say anything to promote her narcissistic sense of destiny. The Clintons are immensely dangerous.
Extremely accurate and well said.
I disagree. Hillary is a narcissistic ideologue who believes so completely that she knows better than anyone what is best for all of us that she would do or say almost anything to become president.
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.