OBAMA DEFIES PERSONAL ATTACKS
Peggy Noonan finally states the obvious. Link from Drudge.
Mrs. Clinton would be easier [to attack and bring down] for Republicans. With her cavalcade of scandals, they'd be delighted to go at her. They'd get medals for it. Consultants would get rich on it.
The Democrats have it exactly wrong. Hillary is the easier candidate [to bring down], Mr. Obama the tougher. Hillary brings negative; it's fair to hit her back with negative. Mr. Obama brings hope, and speaks of a better way. He's not Bambi, he's bulletproof.
The biggest problem for the Republicans will be that no matter what they say that is not issue oriented--"He's too young, he's never run anything, he's not fully baked"--the mainstream media will tag them as dealing in racial overtones, or undertones. You can bet on this. Go to the bank on it.
The Democrats continue not to recognize what they have in this guy. Believe me, Republican professionals know. They can tell.
I have been proclaiming Hillary Inevitability but it is certainly starting to look like Obama has all the momentum. Blacks are voting for the black candidate, and white guilt is voting for the black candidate, and when you hear him you just like the guy. A generation of Jesse Jacksonism makes him untouchable. It's an unfair advantage and a real one. He knows it.
I listened to Bush's speech this morning at CPAC, and even if you agree with him, you have to concede that it's the same speech he's been giving for five years and his popularity has plummeted during that time. Not a good sign for November.
1 comment:
Yeah, the media has had this backwards.
Either candidate probably beats a Republican, but the former with a bloody fight and the latter with a soft touch.
Post a Comment