Weaver was just asked how did Obama win against Clinton with the same obstacles as Sanders?

[TheKentuckian]

120. Easy, he was a slightly undercover establishment candidate, the establishment was split, and Obama

is a hell of a political talent and campaigner which about zero people argue, even the most racist and regressive TeaPubliKLANS that spit his name like venom and must accompany it with a demand for a birth certificate regardless of context can admit that.

If Sanders is pretty good but just as a political performer, speechifier, and wordsmith Obama is he'd be doing pretty well and holy shit would Clinton be rocking off the meter with all her structural advantages.

Clinton was also far more diligent in laying groundwork to ensure no division in the establishment this time.

The question isn't tough but Weaver has to walk a little softly on Obama, a lot of people have a lot of affection for the man inside the party and is highly respected by most Democrats even by a number who have significant differences with him.
Doesn't make him less establishment fast tracked and supported by some serious heavy hitters both politically and with the money people the whole way that Sanders was not going to be able to tap even if he wanted.

Most know it is true but that intellectual awareness doesn't help with the reflex walls going up so there is no real win in the situation.

It's trap question.
The truth will not set one up for success right now, at least not the whole unvarnished truth. I'm a citizen, civilian at that I can call it the way I see it and in real life not get push back but in the media the likelihood of getting distorted into a silly shit storm is at least 78%.

I'd focus on Obama's once in a generation or so talent (with a little "Oh shucks" quip at Bernie's expense) and inspiring message after a long dark and call it a day. Short and sweet, talk a little bit but say even less.