Errr, what the hell is this? He takes a string of jokes, and a comment by the candidate's wife (who is, not surprisingly, proud of him and thinks he is qualified to be president), and asserts that the Obama campaign may be about to be crushed by its sense of entitlement? Duh - what? That's your basis for such a charge? Jokes? Oh wait, it's that he holds firm views and doesn't like to be challenged? Ummm, name a president in the last quarter century that wasn't true of, dude.
And of course he slams Clinton for her sense of entitlement, but then implies it doesn't matter because everyone knows the Clinton's have a sense of entitlement. And actually in her case her sense of entitlement is kind of a good thing?
That may seem unfair to a candidate who's running against Clinton, the former first lady who is the model of overbearing pride. This is a woman, after all, who claims experience from her eight years as first lady but won't release her White House records; who trails Obama in delegates but deigned to suggest he'd be her running mate; and who has more baggage than Samsonite yet says Obama lacks "vetting." But voters expect arrogance from Clinton and her husband, Bill. It's part of the package. It's a 90s-thing. The Clintons' utter self-absorption comes with a record of achievement and brass-knuckle passion that Obama cannot match - and that Democratic voters know could come in handy against GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain.
And then he concludes with two short paragraphs that would seem to imply Fournier is just making up this entire rant on the basis of nothing whatsoever that's already happened - but it might happen, and he better not get too cocky!
What a weird column. Though I guess the gist is of it really is that Fournier is not an Obama fan.
Posted by armand at March 18, 2008 10:26 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Media