Well the Politico just published a shockingly idiotic - while interesting - piece about what "Hillary" cannot say about BO but want to.
Let's go through it, shall we ?
http://www.politico.com/...
(DISCLAIMER: I am not a Politico hater. I generally like their reporting, even when it pisses me off).
Why, ask many Democrats and media commentators, won’t Hillary Rodham Clinton see the long odds against her, put her own ambitions aside, and gracefully embrace Barack Obama as the inevitable Democratic nominee?
Here is why: She and Bill Clinton both devoutly believe that Obama’s likely victory is a disaster-in-waiting. Naïve Democrats just don’t see it. And a timid, pro-Obama press corps, in their view, won’t tell the story.
READ: ONLY ME CAN WIN ! NOONE ELSE CAN WIN !
A lot of coverage of the Clinton campaign supposes them to be in kitchen-sink mode—hurling every pot and pan, no matter the damage this might do to Obama as the likely Democratic nominee in the fall.
In fact, the Democratic race has not been especially rough by historical standards. What’s more, our conversations with Democrats who speak to the Clintons make plain that their public comments are only the palest version of what they really believe: That if Obama is the nominee a likely Democratic victory would turn to a near-certain defeat.
Far from a no-holds-barred affair, the Democratic contest has been an exercise in self-censorship.
Yeah. Kudos to Hillary Clinton for her restraint. No, really. She has been classy and all.
What the f... are they smoking ? I am so tired of hearing historical standards. I care about THIS race. And HIllary has crossed WAY many lines.
Republicans will also ruthlessly exploit openings that Clinton—in the genteel confines of an intra-party contest—never could. Top targets: Obama’s radioactive personal associations, his liberal ideology, his exotic life story, his coolly academic and elitist style.
Because, you know, there is no radioactive personal associations in the Clinton's past. And no Republican thinks of Hillary Clinton as too liberal. And noone thinks of her as cold. And her own life story is not elitist at all. I mean poor black kid works hard, goes to Harvard , and has a succeful book and becomes a Senator is so different from poor middle class white girl works hard, goes to Wellesley, and maakes 109$ millions over a decade and becomes a Senator.
There’s nothing to say that the Clintonites are right about Obama’s presumed vulnerabilities. But one argument seems indisputably true: Obama is on the brink of the Democratic nomination without having had to confront head-on the evidence about his general election challenges.
Yeah. He has SO just had an easy ride so far. He is just winning by magic. Hasn't proven anything after a year and a half of campaigning and beating that Hillary who knows so much about politics apparently.
Let’s take the first point: Obama’s electoral coalition. His impressive success to date comes predominately from strong support among upscale, college-educated whites and overwhelming support from African-Americans.
Assuming he is the Democratic nominee, it seems virtually certain he would bring turnout of these groups to historic levels.
Obama is on the brink of Democratic nomination without confronting head-on questions about his general-election hurdles.
Photo: AP
Page 2
But there is reason to question whether he would be able to perform at average levels with other main pillars of the traditional Democratic coalition: blue-collar whites, Jews and Hispanics. He has run decently among these groups in some places, but in general he’s run well behind her.
Obama lost the Jewish vote by double-digits in Florida, New York and Maryland—and that was before controversy over anti-Israel remarks of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
An undecided Democratic superdelegate told us many Jewish voters are itching for a reason to break with the party and side with Republicans, who have embraced the Israeli cause with passion. A small shift could swing swing states like Florida and Pennsylvania, which have significant Jewish populations.
Obama won only about one-third of Hispanic votes on Super Tuesday – and did even worse a month later in Texas. A Democratic nominee needs big margins with Hispanics to win states like New Mexico, California, Colorado and Arizona. In the fall, Obama would be running against a Republican with a record on immigration that will resonate with Hispanics.
Then there’s the lower-income white vote. Does it seem odd that a woman with a polarizing reputation would be rolling up enormous margins among some of the country’s most traditional voters? Three out of every four blue-collar whites in small-towns and rural areas of Ohio voted for Clinton over Obama on March 4. The reality is, this is already an electorate with deep cultural divisions—and that’s in the Democratic Party.
(...)
McCain, by contrast, would have a free hand to exploit a paper trail showing Obama’s evolution---opponents would say reversals--over the past decade from liberal positions on gun control, the death penalty, and Middle East politics. He would exploit Obama’s current position in favor of driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and beginning diplomatic talks with U.S. adversaries like the dictators of Iran and Venezuala. Will those issues help lower-income white voters "come back together" with Obama?
OK Let's go through this ONE MORE TIME.
Yes, Obama seems to have a lower level of support in the Jewish community as Hillary. First, if as the article says they are "itching" to vote for pro-Israel Republicans, they will find a way to, whoever the candidate. And for the umpteenth time, Obama does not count on winning FL (even though he may end up trying).
Secondly, Hispanics. I don't understand why journalists insist on pretending this means they would not vote for Obama in the general. Obama was very pro-Hispanics (and they mention the driver license as a turn-off for white voters underneath ... but isn't that a way to appeal to the Hispanics), has an awesome record on immigration AND MCCain cannot talk about immigration like he used to because his base would turn away from him. So Obama would be able to press his advantage on that issue.
And finally, low income voters. Once again, primary preference mean squat. Arguably, his VP, whoever that will be, will help with that. WI or VI has proven he can win them over and I would argue PA - until this weekend- had proven that when he campaigns, he can be pretty convincing.
I also have another argument on that last paragraph but it is more general so I will mention it later.
Obama is a much less familiar figure than Kerry or Gore, with a life story that is far more exotic, who is coming out of a political milieu in Chicago politics that is far more liberal.
The freak show has already signaled its early lines of attack on Obama. Polls show a significant percentage of Americans believe — falsely — that he is a Muslim. Voter interviews reveal widespread unease with minor and seemingly irrelevant questions like why he does not favor American flag pins on his lapel. Nor have we heard the last about Wright and his fulminations.
Here will be the real kitchen sink: every damaging comment or association from Obama’s past, mixed together with innuendo and downright fiction, to portray him as an an exotic character of uncertain values and weak patriotism.
And once again, 1) how can they pretend this would not be done with Hillary too ? 2) Has Obama shown any signs of not being able to fight back and have people shown that they CARE ? HE is WINNING, isn't he ? 3) How is FEAR of what the Republicans MIGHT say a criteria for picking our nominee ? Why is it a given the republicans are better at this than us and we have to pick our choice from a defensive position ? WE HAVE THE ADVANTAGES ! WE ARE THE FAVORITES ! They should be scared of US.
Obama’s advisers say they are not naive about freak show attacks. Their response is that Obama’s appeal to a new brand of politics, and his personal poise and self-confidence, will allow him to transcend attacks and stereotypes in ways that Gore and Kerry could not.
Obama is indeed poised and self-confident. But the current uproar over his impromptu sociology lesson in San Francisco about "bitter" voters in Pennsylvania raise questions about his self-discipline, and his understanding of how easy it is for a politicians in modern politics to lose control of his or her public image
Yes. One misword in 18 months of campaigning shows that he is a TERRIBLE candidate. By opposition, say, to Ms Tuzla-Yes-no-yes-no-on-driverslicense-campaign-in-disarray Hillary.
And yes. Obama is naive. He has let this story go haywire for days before he took control of it. He just doesn't know about having a public image to protect so he just sat on his hands.
Seriously ? What are they smoking ?
Clinton has her own baggage, to put it mildly. But it’s been rummaged through for years, so what Democrats see is pretty much what they would get.
Thanks for that perfunctory sentence, guys. No reason to dwelve into the fact there is MUCH more dirt on HER. And you know, as long as we KNOW what they are going to attack her on, we will be fine, right ? It is not like the article just told us what they were going to attack Obama on, right ? Oh wait. Yes, they just did. Means it is the same ? Oh well.
The frustration emanating from the Clintonites comes from being unable to say in public what they think in private.
Yeah. I feel their pain. You have no idea what I am not saying about them I wish I could.
Little wonder why. Bill Clinton’s comments comparing Obama’s support in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s were certainly impolitic. But it’s absurd to contend, as many Democrats indignantly do, that they amounted to a shocking low blow or to "playing the race card."
Well, my dear, this leaves me speechless. Considering those two bozos agreed with us back then. But OK. I will leave it to you guys to judge if that was absurd.
The reaction underscored the essential prissiness of the Democratic contest so far. One can be sure the general election will not be such a delicate affair.
Well, here is my final point here. The tremendous mistake Hillary and the article make is that they seem to forget Obama will have an opponent. The election does not have to be a referendum on HIM. We are going to make it a referendum on MCCAIN, the serial flip-flopper, the lobbyist-lover, the warmonger, the serial cheater (and he probably would not dare using Michelle against Barack coz there is MUCH to say about his dear wife), the abortion-hater, the economy-ignorer.
Somehow the assumption is that McCain is a favorite and the election will be only a function of how people see Obama. WRONG. There are two candidates in this election. And for whatever doubts some people may have about Barry (and I already discussed whether that was for real or in the journalists' heads), I guarantee you we can raise just as many about Senator McCain.