How was that different from the way the Clinton administration was treated by the Republicans? Tit for tat Jack but it needs to stop somewhere. Seems like since the internet it's either the new guys fault or the last guys fault and it's more important to highlight faults than give any support.
The right always seems to suck up to the guy who's making the most noise and is consistently wrong (hello, Bill Kristol?).
As it is with the Hon. Victor David Hanson:
For example, here is Victor Davis Hanson (pictured) in National Review, today, in a post that's making the blogospheric rounds:We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosionâ€â€and with no Dick Morris to bail him outâ€â€brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking.
Here's Victor Davis Hanson in National Review, September 2008:
No Northern Democratic liberal like Obama has won the presidency in a half-century...The new Obama probably will recover from his temporary setback in the polls. But right now his problem is that disappointed independent voters are catching on that this saintly savior is all too human.
Here's Victor David Hanson in National Review, March 2008:
Barack Obama is on his way to a McGovern candidacy.
Here's Victor Davis Hanson in National Review, March 2008 (again):
Obama is crashing in all the polls, especially against McCain, against whom he doesn’t stack up well, given McCain’s heroic narrative, the upswing in Iraq, and the past distance between McCain and the Bush administration.
Predicting a president's doom is a high-risk game. Or it would be, if pundits were held as accountable as, say, cabinet nominees.
Wouldn't Spiro Agnew call this clown a 'nattering nabob of negativism'?