Media Notes Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |  E-mail Kurtz  |  Style Section
Page 2 of 4   <       >

Is Obama Too Soft?

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Politico finds someone who wants a tougher Obama:

"One of the Democratic Party's leading electoral street fighters, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, said that Barack Obama should respond to John McCain's personal attacks with an equally personal slap . . .

"He argued for a higher-velocity response. 'I would answer back hard. What do you mean he's not one of us? It's John McCain who wears $500 shoes, has six houses, and comes from one of the richest families in his state,' Schumer said. 'It's Barack Obama who climbed up the hard way, and that's why he wants middle-class tax cuts and better schools for our kids.' "

After a day of media reports on friction with the Hillary camp, the Obama team leaked this news last night:

"Former President Clinton will speak at the Democratic National Convention this month, settling a lingering question about the role he will play in Barack Obama's nomination," the L.A. Times reports. "A senior Democrat familiar with convention plans said Thursday that Clinton would address delegates on Wednesday, Aug. 27, the day before the Illinois senator is to formally accept the nomination."

"So with Mrs. Clinton speaking on Aug. 26, followed by her husband, the Obama campaign is giving two nights of prime time coverage to the Clinton family," says the New York Times, adding: "The matter was so sensitive that no one was willing to speak about it on the record. Democrats on all sides, though, said it's a done deal."

All this back and forth has me wondering: Would Hillary have been in a stronger position at this point? She was stronger among working-class voters--the traditional Democratic base--and few seriously questioned her readiness to be president.

On the other hand, her weaknesses were apparent throughout the primaries: lackluster speaker. Divisive figure. And seen as running in a change election to restore the 1990s. I doubt she'd be much higher in the polls than Obama.

Conservatives have also been thinking about their least favorite former first lady, who Victor Davis Hanson says could have taken McCain:

"Many are beginning to notice how a Saint Obama talks down to them. We American yokels can't speak French or Spanish. We eat too much. Our cars are too big, our houses either overheated or overcooled. And we don't even put enough air in our car tires. In contrast, a lean, hip Obama promises to still the rising seas and cool down the planet, assuring adoring Germans that he is a citizen of the world . . .

"In a tough year like this, Democrats could probably have defeated Republican John McCain with a flawed, but seasoned candidate like Hillary Clinton. But long-suffering liberals convinced their party to go with a messiah rather than a dependable nominee -- and thereby they probably will get neither."

At Hot Air, much more skepticism from Ed Morrissey:


<       2           >


© 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive