When you are a Democrat President of the United States and you begin to lose the mainstream media, which has carried your water and covered your backside from day one, you might be in real trouble.
The latest piece from Ron Fournier of National Journal is a particularly good example of sharp criticism that President Obama is not used to hearing from such quarters. Fournier asserts the Obama Administration is incompetent and dishonest. On the latter assertion, he goes so far as to use the word lie:
The Obama White House has a credibility problem, one that could infect his entire agenda. It started when the White House refused to release data on the number of people who enrolled in the online marketplace, an important metric for determining the effectiveness of the $400 million-plus site. Administration officials say they don’t have the data, which is either a mark of extraordinary incompetence or a lie.
The problem was compounded when millions of self-insured Americans received notices that their health care policies were being canceled. For years, Obama pledged that “if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan. Period.” According to The Wall Street Journal, Obama’s advisers knew the president was making a promise he couldn’t keep, and debated whether to have the president “explain the nuances of the succinct line in his stump speeches.” In other words, they debated whether to tell the full truth and decided against it. They knowingly told a falsehood, which is by definition a lie.
We’ve just witnessed what was once the unthinkable not so long ago: A mainstream journalist calling out the Obama Administration for lying to the American people. 
Now I don’t mean to quibble with Fournier. I’m glad to see him come around even though he’s late to the party. But to suggest that Obama’s credibility problem only started after the Obamacare launch in October leaves me in utter incredulity. Can you say “Benghazi”, Mr. Fournier?
There are two other observations Fournier makes that are worth noting: First, that Obamacare was jammed down the throats of the American people in a hyper-partisan way. He doesn’t say it quite that way, of course, but he does allude to it:
The White House and its allies blame Republicans for the lack of money and options. It’s an understandable reaction. The GOP-controlled House wants to gut the law.
But it’s no excuse. Obama pushed a partisan law through a Democratic-controlled Congress and now bears the responsibility for implementing it. If Obama fails, history will judge the chief executive more harshly than one chamber of the legislative branch.
Secondly, that the great premise of Liberalism may not be true. Maybe there are certain things that the government shouldn’t be involved in:
More important, mismanagement of ACA would give a generation of Americans reason to question the Democratic Party’s core argument that government can do good things.
This last point must have liberal journalists and politicians alike absolutely quaking in their boots. If Obamacare crashes and burns in a spectacular way, the setback for the Left may be spectacular as well. One can only hope.