Here’s a snippet:
It never fails that no matter how many missed opportunities go by Mr. Obama, and no matter how many head scratching mistakes he makes; no matter how big a continued strategy fails (see 10 point loss in Penn), the Obamanites never see one wrong thing that he is doing/has done.
… (H)e’s come up short time and again in a number of areas. It all primarily comes under the heading of not adjusting to the changing winds, i.e. he rest on those positive factors that I’ve highlighted and no matter the circumstance will hardly adjust to meet new developing challenges. …
Obamanites will have none of this talk though. A one to three percent shrinking lead is a massive success to them. Going into June having eeked out a bare minimum win to them is evidence of perfection, though he’s had opportunity to bury his opponent; yet instead has allowed her to define him to the public and raise his negatives going into the general.
They resist any critique of him, including constructive criticism by Obama supporters who haven’t drunk the kool-aid and are not enthralled with the man’s perfection. This is an unfortunate constant in our public discourse, where if certain people are for someone then they refuse to acknowledge any negatives about them. They can’t be for someone and be critical of them at the same time. They find that to somehow be mutually exclusive, rather than nobly honest and constructive.
Boswell makes some interesting points. I’ve jokingly written about some of Obama’s more fervent supporters who have a bit of a Messiah complex over him, but I haven’t looked at how some of the “hear no evil, see no evil” types could be impacting the race.
It concerns me that Obama is having trouble adjusting to the Clintons’ tenacity. He’s the front runner. Mathematically Hillary Clinton cannot win, yet she’s still in it and winning states. The following is an extreme example, but this is almost like when Mike Huckabee was winning states when it was obvious he couldn’t win the nomination. Huckabee was more of a long-shot. Sen. Clinton has actually won many more delegates and states than the Huckster, but shouldn’t she be marginalized by now? Why are we still existing in this limbo where her chances at grasping the nomination is still a possibility?
Where is the coup de grâce, Barack?
Last night on CNN they showed a statistic that said a plurality of Pennsylvanians thought Obama would be the nominee, yet Clinton won the state by almost 10 percent. That means a lot of people voted for her even though they thought the contest was over. What does that say? What is that really about? It’s uncomfortable for people to talk about it, but I’m just going to throw it out there.
Are lower-to-working class whites going to vote for Obama? You know, the less erudite, non-Liberal and not wealthy white voter? The class that is less likely to “hope” and more likely to go “I’m voting for McCain if he’s the nominee?” What is Obama to do about those people as a good portion of the Democratic electorate are them and are impervious to grand displays of superlatives and loquaciousness in the midst of a presidential primary run?
What can Obama do to convince these individuals that he’s for them too and keep them from staying at home or breaking ranks come November?