Some food for thought

By Carl

David Seaton raises an interesting point: has the right wing called in a "hit" on Barack Obama, should he win the nomination?

Peggy Noonan, who wrote some of Reagan's best speeches, is the right wing's Maureen Dowd: Irish, beautiful, witty, subtle and dangerous (ed. note: And as big a moron). In today's Wall Street Journal, she joins such arch-conservative pundits as George Will and David Brooks in praising Barack Obama and favoring him for the Democratic nomination.

"(Obama) is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee -- an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country." -- George Will

"The Kennedys and Obama hit the same contrasts again and again in their speeches: the high road versus the low road; inspiration versus calculation; future versus the past; and most of all, service versus selfishness." -- David Brooks

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to smell a rat here.

Which has sort of been my suspicion ever since Obama begn to build momentum and was also the backdrop of yesterday's post.

David comes to an interesting conclusion as to the "whys" here, one I'm not sure I agree with:

It is this simple: in recent decades the Clintons are the only Democrats that win elections against Republicans... They don't want to ever face them again, no more complicated than that.

While true, Hillary has shown she is clearly beatable. Why they would be "terrified" of her (David's word) is a bit hazy.

But, Obama is the softer target, to be sure: her negatives are out there. People have seen them, processed them, and unless the Rovian wing decides to just make shit up (not impossible, see Bush's first gubenatorial run), it will be a little harder to make her numbers even more negative without a major fumble on her part.

That's not likely to happen in the general election.

Obama, however, has shown a remarkably thin skin, as have those who support him.

One could only imagine his reaction to David's scenario:

As soon as Barack Obama is declared the official candidate of the Democratic party the voters will be treated to something similar to the old TV show, "This is your Life"... Here is how Wikipedia describes the experience:

"The format of the show was simple: the host would surprise someone (usually a celebrity or public figure, occasionally an ordinary citizen) and, consulting his "red book," conduct a biography of the subject in a television studio. The subject would be presented with family members and old friends, reunited with old acquaintances, and often shed a tear when a personal tragedy was recounted."

I think it's a goddamned shame that, in order to elect a President, we have to look beyond a man's (or woman's) policies and proposals, and take into account how badly they'd be trashed in the election and whether they are "electable" (one reason I never got into politics was my own boneyard of skeletons in my closet...*shrug*...the 70s and 80s were a blur).

But we do, sadly.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)