NYT shocked to find a politician instead of a virgin
posted at 9:11 am on July 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The New York Times editorial board went to bed with a virgin and woke up with a … well, a pro, in milder terms, or so they seem to imply in today’s unhappy missive. The editorial castigates Obama for his replacement of just about everything he has professed from January 2007 to May 2008 with his all-new, 50%-more-”centery” agenda that rejects everything that made him attractive to the Left in the first place. And they wonder where it will all stop:
Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.
Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.
Shock #1: Obama wants money, and scads of it. What the Times forgets to mention is that Obama the Reformer doesn’t just want to raise a lot of money, but that he also wants to avoid any limit on spending it. I don’t want to rain any more disillusionment on the Times, but that’s really the bigger part of the betrayal on reform, and hardly any of the media has mentioned it.
The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.
Shock #2: Obama won’t obstruct a bipartisan compromise that got 80 votes for cloture in the Senate. It would have been a lost cause anyway — Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd only got 13 other votes for the filibuster — but also, Obama doesn’t need the Code Pink/MoveOn vote any longer. In fact, this sends a clear signal that Obama considers them a millstone rather than a life preserver at this stage of the campaign. Besides, where else will they go — to Nader? How well did that work in 2000?
On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.
Their description of these shifts as “perplexing” provides some unintentional hilarity. What’s perplexing about this? The Times is out of the mainstream on both issues, as is the Left in general. Obama wants voters in the middle now, so he will change his principles like he does his lapel pin, as Charles Krauthammer notes in his column today, “A Man of Seasonal Principles”:
You’ll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he’d worn one after Sept. 11 but then stopped because it “became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism.” So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over. While seducing the hard-core MoveOn Democrats that delivered him the caucuses — hence, the Democratic nomination — Obama not only disdained the pin. He disparaged it. Now that he’s running in a general election against John McCain, and in dire need of the gun-and-God-clinging working-class votes he could not win against Hillary Clinton, the pin is back. His country ’tis of thee.
In last week’s column, I thought I had thoroughly chronicled Obama’s brazen reversals of position and abandonment of principles — on public financing of campaigns, on NAFTA, on telecom immunity for post-Sept. 11 wiretaps, on unconditional talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — as he moved to the center for the general election campaign. I misjudged him. He was just getting started.
Like the NYT editorial board, Krauthammer concludes that Obama will risk nothing for principle, but will abandon all for power. Unlike the Times, Krauthammer doesn’t find this “perplexing” or caterwaul about it like a jilted lover, mainly because Krauthammer didn’t buy the act in the first place. Krauthammer warns about the consequences of electing a such a man to high office:
Of course, once he gets there he will have to figure out what he really believes. The conventional liberal/populist stuff he campaigned on during the primaries? Or the reversals he is so artfully offering up now?
I have no idea. Do you? Does he?
Meanwhile, the NYT continues to believe:
We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.
There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.
If it will win Obama the election, we can expect to see “redefining” on all of these issues and more. He already began with Iraq yesterday, which the editorial board fails to mention in this piece. The last of Obama’s primary stands will have fallen, and we will be left with a cipher who will do or say anything to get what he wants.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
This was incomplete reporting as usual…they left out a tone of flip flops.
tomas on July 4, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Obama is Chance the gardener in Peter Sellers’ movie “Being There.”
He means everything to everyone, but stands for nothing.
Wethal on July 4, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Not for long. By October they’ll be saying the same thing. The only differences will be purely stylistic.
Obama’s primary appeal is aesthetic. Either you like the style or you don’t. Otherwise he’s a better looking Clinton and a better dressed Nixon: a coreless puddle of ambition poured into a nice suit.
But hey, it could be worse. Since he’s probably going to win I’d rather have an unprincipled, shifty, political hack willing to betray his so-called ideals for the slightest advantage than a true believer, a rabid ideologue who’ll try to force a revolution from above.
Now that we know what Barry is we’re just haggling over the price.
Vote Sauron 08 on July 4, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Nicely written Ed… All I can say about this election for potus is “God help us!”
Keemo on July 4, 2008 at 9:27 AM
The fact that the left was “used” to secure the nomination is just politics. Politicians have no conception of the truth. They all tell you what you want to hear and let the consequences fall where they may. Core beliefs? What in the hell are core beliefs? This country is begging for leadership and the best we can do is these two clowns?
volsense on July 4, 2008 at 9:29 AM
No, no, no. The NY Times is NOT shocked. They are only pretending to be. Tiger Hawk has their number pretty well nailed.
centralcal on July 4, 2008 at 9:30 AM
He’s like the cad who’ll say anything–I love you, I’ll always be here for you–to get the girl in bed, but he’s gone in the morning.
jgapinoy on July 4, 2008 at 9:30 AM
This is so fun to watch. I just wish I thought it meant Obama can’t win, but it doesn’t and I don’t. Krauthammer nailed it. Obama is trying to erase the big policy issue differences between himself and McCain so he can run on looks, youth, and personality.
But Krauthammer’s wrong if he thinks Obama really is unknowable. Obama is an unrepentant leftist and will govern as one. I think Krauthammer was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with his, “I have no idea. Do you? Does he?” closing. I’m pretty sure Krauthammer knows the Marxist Obama is the real Obama. But without much of a public record, it’s going to be hard to prove it.
aero on July 4, 2008 at 9:30 AM
I was worried that the Dems would surely have learned something from last time, when they ran a pompous serial-confabulating flourish-saluting war hero who, strangely enough, could not allow his military records to be released to public scrutiny.
Looks like I was wrong.
drunyan8315 on July 4, 2008 at 9:31 AM
THE LEFT WAS NOT MERELY USED.
THE LAST THREE DECADES OF OBAMA’S LIFE HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY COMMITTED TO LEFTISM.
HE HASN’T CHANGED.
HER MERELY WANTS TO BE ELECTED.
SO HE’S DOING WHAT ALL PO’S DO: APPEAR MOVE TO THE CENTER.
DON;T BE DECEIVED BY APPEARANCES.
MCCAIN IS THE TRUE CENTRIST.
NOT THAT I LIKE THAT IN GENERAL, BUT A TRUE CENTRIST IS BETTER THAN A COMMITTED LEFTIST.
FOLKS LIKE ALTHOUSE AND GLENN REYNOLDS AND MIKE TOTTEN MIGHT BE FOOLED.
BUT IT’S JUST WISHFUL THINKING.
OBAMA IS A LEFTIST THRU AND THRU.
WHY HASN’T HE EVER REPUDIATED AYERS?
WHY DOES HE SUPPORT TAX INCREASES WHICH REDUCE REVENUES?
THOSE WHO THINK HE’S MERELY AMBITIOUS AND THAT HE WILL GOVERN RATIONALLY ARE DUPES.
BESIDES WHERE HE MIGHT BE ON THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, NO ONE CAN DENY HIS MINUSCULE RESUME.
HE IS INARGUABLY THE LEAST QUALIFIED PERSON EVER TO GAIN THE NOMINATION OF A MAJOR PARTY.
FRIGHTENINGLY SO.
A THIN RESUME OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS, NO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE, DECADES OF ASSOCIATIONS WITH EXTREME LEFTISTS AND RACISTS LIKE WRIGHT
D I S Q U A L I F Y
OBAMA.
AS HE IS TESTED MORE AND MORE IN THE COMING MONTHS THIS WILL BECOME MORE APPARENT. SO EVEN FOLKS LIKE GLENN REYNOLDS AND ALTHOUSE WILL HAVE TO ADMIT IT.
MOST AMERICANS WILL SEE THIS CLEARLY BEFORE NOVEMBER.
AND MCCAIN WILL WIN BY 150 ELECTORAL VOTES.
reliapundit on July 4, 2008 at 9:38 AM
NOT NEWS - Politician can’t be trusted
NEWS - Media actually surprised that politician can’t be trusted.
whitetop on July 4, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Me, I’m waiting for the big Jib-Jab production that really tells the O! story. Sooner or later someone’s gonna come up with a utube video thats gonna go viral and that will be the end of barry. I hope.
JimK on July 4, 2008 at 9:40 AM
This is the single most incisive statement made about Obama so far. It needs to be repeated over and over. McCain campaign, are you listening?
Gilda on July 4, 2008 at 9:40 AM
(Sarcasim)
Well,its not that Obama flip/flops or anything,maybe its
Republicans are,
Hearing wrong
Didn’t here the whole qoute
took it out of context
Maybe reading in too much of the message or statement
But on the otherhand,
How and the h!ll does one keep up with Teflon(Obama)Don’s
statements,lies,and parseing the very fine line of Barack!
No sooner,do you hear a statement,and Obama starts getting
heat from it,and on a dime Obama has done a 180 degrees,then
by the night,Obama reverses it again!
So I say,Obama’s Magic Hopey and Changey Mystical Tour,he
switches his positions maybe 4 to 6 times a day!
No wonder the Lefty MSM are mesmerized by the ameteur turned
a hum,PRO!
canopfor on July 4, 2008 at 9:41 AM
The NYT’s editorial missed the Iraq issue because it is a real mainstream Democrat hot button. They gave Obama marks and pats on the back for realizing he doesn’t need the the Code Pink/MoveOn vote any longer for some issues. However, the Times realizes their presidential candidate needs as much cover as he can get on his new Iraq stand for as long a he can get it. Perhaps there will be some huge news story that will help to displace Obama’s flip-flop. The millions of Democrats who still really believe Irag is a failure may change their minds about Obama if they were to get all the news in a timely manner.
Don’t wait for the Times to provide this news even though it is something fit to print.
conservative educator on July 4, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Rove said last night on H&C what should the standard line in Mav’s campaign…”he’s just another typical Chicago politician”
What’s he scared of, alienating Chicago? We all know what our “elected” officials are here.
LtE126 on July 4, 2008 at 9:44 AM
This country is begging for leadership and the best we can do is these two clowns? - Volsense
The Signers of the Declaration must be spinning in their graves!
Tony737 on July 4, 2008 at 9:45 AM
I don’t see how Obama can do the full 180 on Iraq before the convention. Hillary is still lurking out there. He may really be underestimating how badly his base wants to get out of Iraq. These people think this war is illegal and every day we are there constitutes a crime against humanity. There is no room for nuance, or for contemplating the facts on the ground or the advice of the generals, in this view. They will turn violent if he abandons them. Hide and watch. Denver 2008 will make Chicago 1968 look like a tea party.
rockmom on July 4, 2008 at 9:52 AM
I find myself wondering if this disenchantment with Obama has less to do with finding a political animal under the rhetoric than finding someone the Dem Party had seen as a puppet to be used by the Party’s powerful to their own ends, is not so usable after all. Surprise!! He’s going to do what works for his OWN ends. Who’d a thought it!
jeanie on July 4, 2008 at 9:53 AM
I’m getting Gray Davis flashbacks- not good.
jjshaka on July 4, 2008 at 9:54 AM
The Times shouldn’t worry: Osama Obama hasn’t abandoned Ayers, Dohrn, Rezko or his nifty only-for-buddies mortgage.
See? He does stick to the important stuff.
MrScribbler on July 4, 2008 at 9:56 AM
The man quit his church when the heat got too hot, for crying out loud. That should tell us EVERYTHING we need to know about this weasel. I don’t understand why we haven’t made more hay out of that. Has there ever been a candidate for national office that quit his church in the middle of a campaign? And he has the chutzpah to give a speech about faith and expect us to believe a word of it?
rockmom on July 4, 2008 at 9:57 AM
… A TRUE CENTRIST IS BETTER THAN A COMMITTED LEFTIST. - Reliapundit
Any day. I wish it were true that Obama was moving to the center, it’d be much better to have two centrists than one and a damn-near communist. It’s hard to believe we may have this Marxist rookie as our next Prez.
Tony737 on July 4, 2008 at 9:58 AM
First look at McCain/Obama?!
Jaibones on July 4, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Jaibones on July 4, 2008 at 9:58 AM
oops
Jaibones on July 4, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Obama is a human chameleon with no core to base his values on. This is the epitome of a marketing scam that if successful could make traditional values a joke. Without a core there cannot be no truth.
volsense on July 4, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Don’t overestimate the Times here. They are bedwetting liberals through and through. They have been having a collective orgasm about Obama ever since he clinched the nomination because they thought he was their kind of Democrat. They were genuinely naive, and they are genuinely pissed now.
And guess what? Davis Axelrod doesn’t care. The New York Times editorial page is not going to gain or lose him a single vote. He knows it, and the Times knows it. All we can do is enjoy the comedy of watching the Times squeal in horror.
rockmom on July 4, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Wish I could be so optimistic. What I see hiding underneath the rhetorical flourish is the essential Marxist, to the core. In the words of Dick Morris, we’re about to get “fleeced”.
petefrt on July 4, 2008 at 10:04 AM
I’m betting the next thing on Obama’s agenda is weaseling out of any debates at all with John McCain. McCain will clean his clock and he knows it. Axelrod thinks this campaign is essentially over and he is going to try to run out the clock now.
If there are debates, this is going to be Bush vs. Gore all over again.
rockmom on July 4, 2008 at 10:05 AM
If voters can’t comprehend that this worm is a hard core Marxist, then let them elect him and completely destroy themselves and the country. Idiocy is incurable and it appears to have taken a strong foothold in this country.
rplat on July 4, 2008 at 10:09 AM
I still can’t believe the media uses “Mr. Bush” instead of the proper title for any President. Did the NY Times call clinton Mr. Clinton, ever? And still beating that dead horse re: unlawful wiretaps post-9/11. Well what about unlawful attacks on Americans including in the heart of the NY Times readership? Idiots, all of em. Can’t wait till the Gray Lady finally goes under.
Neo on July 4, 2008 at 10:10 AM
You have to hand some cudo’s to Obama’s advisors/handlers that convinced him to “snow” the Code Pinkers and MoveOn morons that bought him the primary that was supposed to be endowed to Hillary. Obama certainly showed how an empty suit can be filled to accomplish his “hope n change” mantra that the leftoids, (and the NYT’s) have swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
Obama’s latest stance on the “Iraq troop withdrawel” where he says “I will refine my policies” speaks volumes about how he would govern this nation—-insert finger into wind. Welcome to the world of the Left. You heard the weatherman, there will be no change.
Rovin on July 4, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Very good point.
Typhoon on July 4, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Well Jim, it’s not JibJab, but they’re getting close here to the video you’re hoping for.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036
SoldiersMom on July 4, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Awww, the Times is a jilted lover and will shed a few indignant tears but will remain a doormat for Possumus.
Yeah, he’s already gotten Jodie Evans to bundle more than $50 K for him, so she can be thrown under the bus, along with former SDS honchette, and mainstream bundler, Marilyn Katz. He will use them as his Sister Soldjah, pretending to be shocked, shocked, shocked by their unpatriotic displays, so I’m not sure he’ll be hurt by them at all.
Buy Danish on July 4, 2008 at 10:17 AM
The good news is I think the penultimate sentence is a very thinly-veiled warning.
Or?
Well the threat from the Left is real enough. Barry can’t flip back on public financing now, and he needs the money of the Left to fund his campaign.
I think that’s a not-so-subtle reminder.
Typhoon on July 4, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Well I’ve got the idea, and I’ve got Flash. We’ll see if I’m good enough to put it together before the election.
Want a sneak peek?
Here’s the chorus:
We’re gonna vote for Barry O
We’ll take out guns and our religion
and just let’em go
‘Cause he’s the saviour of all mankind
And we don’t want to get left behind
Typhoon on July 4, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Not a virgin?
Maybe lolcats isn’t quite up to the level of seriousness expected here at Hotair, but I wasn’t the one quoting the New York Times ;)
fluffy on July 4, 2008 at 10:24 AM
hopefully Nader will reap the benefits of a disguntled left and get to 10%
HawaiiLwyr on July 4, 2008 at 10:25 AM
The Obamassiah has proven to be a man of ‘convenience’, rather than a man of principil.
GarandFan on July 4, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Read the last sentence of the article. “Change we can believe in”… Right out of Obama’s campaign materials! Good grief! Does anyone read this rag anymore and take it seriously other than hard core committed lefty prematurely gray haired women that all drive a Prius, wear sensible shoes and listen to NPR all day?
sabbott on July 4, 2008 at 10:27 AM
That’s it. That’s why Obama is getting all his rightward movement done quickly now - he’s trying to squeeze it all in during the actors’ strike so that SNL can’t do exactly the above-quoted as a skit.
ForNow on July 4, 2008 at 10:29 AM
“That’s it. That’s why Obama is getting all his rightward movement done quickly now - he’s trying to squeeze it all in during the actors’ strike so that SNL can’t do exactly the above-quoted as a skit.
ForNow on July 4, 2008 at 10:29 AM”
Great point.
LtE126 on July 4, 2008 at 10:39 AM
I think it is hysterical that the NYT is shocked that Obama won’t be bi-partisan when they scoffed at President Bush everytime he tried it. Obama has ZERO record of working across the aisle. As a matter of fact does anyone remember the minor dust up that he and McCain had. I don’t remember the issue but apparently Obama had promised to be part of a bi-partisan group and then (surprise) changed his mind. Senator McCain wrote him a letter and it became public. I guess it was so minor that no one remembers but Obama got taken to school on a small scale. If I was McCain I would be reminding folks about that. But apparently it was a bigger deal in my mind then it actually was.
Cindy Munford on July 4, 2008 at 10:40 AM
In buying the election, Obama thinks he can do what he wants with America. I feel he is mistaken.
tarpon on July 4, 2008 at 10:47 AM
You ain’t seen nothin’ yet:
.
I bet Hobama will move to the right on affirmative action.
.
The racist (black) democrats will still vote for him, and some racist (white) might decide to stay home or even vote for the Hobama based on the policy du jour.
.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will be shown to be amateurs and (and more moral) in playing the race card.
Right_of_Attila on July 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I guess Obama is moving so incredibly quickly to the center because (1) it’s like tearing off a bandaid and best done quickly and (2) he’s betting on tons of undecided “moderates” STILL not paying any attention to the election yet. The faster he gets his triangulation over with, the more likely he is to appear comfortably settled in the center–like he’s always been there–to the late-to-the-party moderates who will start paying attention around November 1st or so.
aero on July 4, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Obama could come out for interning the Japanese and killing the Jews and his followers would find some reason to rationalize it and then overlook it in favor of his winning speaking style, refreshing personality and change-based sense of optimism.
Nothing he says, no matter how idiotic, naive, absurd or wafflicious makes any difference to them.
All they see is a way to regain power.
And will twist in any shameless position with Barry to get it.
profitsbeard on July 4, 2008 at 11:14 AM
And maybe Barr will reap the benefits of a disgruntled right and get 10%. Lots of disgruntletude on both sides.
bikermailman on July 4, 2008 at 11:15 AM
The letter was 2/06/06 and it was about lobbying reform. I guess Obama wouldn’t want to become involved with that.
Cindy Munford on July 4, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Aside from the Supreme Court nominees, which the Dem majorities will take care of, just so much baggage to be left by the side of the road with all the rest once a nomination is secured. Very few persons can let go the “ring”, as described in Lord of the Rings, once they have the nomination which brings with it the possibly of the Presidency. To be so close. There are very few George Washington’s who walk away from that mantle.
I would expect Obama to crawl on broken glass if he thinks he has a shot of winning. Very few would not. What we are left with, should he win, is the hope that at his core he is a good man. Not the conniver we suspect.
As to the NYTimes, they will endorse Obama no matter what he does. Ok, Cheney as VP might give them pause.
patrick neid on July 4, 2008 at 11:33 AM
It’s hard to tell if there’s any oppo research out on Obama that hasn’t been made public (although I certainly hope for an October surprise), but I wonder if this wasn’t a warning to Obama that the he shouldn’t stray too far off the reservation or he’d be seen as an opportunistic flip-flopper.
He has no recrod to run on. He’s tossing whatever principles he had overboard. It’s just his personality and communication skills. And if McCain ever manages to shame Obama into debates, especially townhall formats, those communication skills could be found wanting.
Wethal on July 4, 2008 at 11:35 AM
McCain’s campaign committee is too incompetent to do a good job on Obama’s changes of position. The McCain campaign has not raised the issue that when Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, Obama’s signature issue was his opposition to the death penalty. The McCain campaign won’t raise the issue that Obama was recently against any limits on partial birth abortion. Nor will they mention that Obama was for a massive reduction is defense expenditures. The McCain campaign is so adrift that it can’t make use of the easy issues that are right in front of them.
Larraby on July 4, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Sometimes I get the feeling we are watching one of those weird futuristic movies from the 70’s and 80’s. Like Logan’s Run or something. The remake of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It looks like one thing, but it is another.
Terrye on July 4, 2008 at 11:38 AM
rockmom,
Very good point. SOmeone’s congregation is as much, in some ways more so, part of their family as their biological relatives. Of course, we’ve seen how he handles his biological relatives.
exhelodrvr on July 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM
I remember it. The last paragraph was a killer,.. McCain at his scornful, derisive, sarcastic best. I wish we could see a little more of that. The time is ripe.
a capella on July 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Very true. It is to be hoped that the new campaign manager will change this.
Wethal on July 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Wait…aren’t there going to be debates? I thought they were a given. I knew Obama was refusing to meet McCain in a town hall format, but can he refuse the traditional, obligatory one-on-one televised debates in the fall? I can’t see the voters on either side just shrugging their shoulders if Obama won’t do those debates.
aero on July 4, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I remember it too. While you may, or may not agree with McCain’s mildness vis a vis Obama so far, at least we do know that McCain despises him and thinks him of low character. Sooner or later, especially if McCain starts to think he will lose, it will have to come out.
JiangxiDad on July 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM
At least one is usually townhall format. McCain did want to do more. Even traditional debates might be tricky for Obama, since they’d be questions and answer. He doesn’t do well without his rehearsed speech on the teleprompter. If you’ve seen his press conferences, it’s a lot of “Uh” “um..”
Obama claims he wants “Lincon-Douglas” type debates. Each person lays out his position in a long speech.
Wethal on July 4, 2008 at 11:47 AM
I wonder if the NYT first cleared the article with Al Qaeda? /Sarcasm
byteshredder on July 4, 2008 at 12:02 PM
How do you think Barry’s recent conversions will play at the convention? Will the Kos Kidz types dare to protest openly, or will they play the battered wife hoping next time will be different and that he still loves them?
a capella on July 4, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Oh man, I am so much a novice when it comes to politics. I have been late to the party, both literally and figuratively. I truly have no idea. I like to think I can often see trends and big-picture issues, but I’m often at a loss as to what’s going to happen tomorrow.
If I had to guess, I’d say that as long as the current nominees stay the same, more or less everyone will fall into line by election day.
JiangxiDad on July 4, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Didn’t Democrats take power in both houses of Congress two years ago based on the promise of a New Direction [fill in the blank]? Take Iraq for example…Dems got elected on it in 06, did nothing, made excuses, and now Obama promises to end the war, will do nothing different, and will make excuses. When will Dems learn?
scottm on July 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM
A wee bit off topic, but not much. Behold a piece of Obama’s success story as an Illinois Senator.
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/
a capella on July 4, 2008 at 12:37 PM
It will depend on what kind of friends he puts into his administration to advise him. With little contact with the real America, he will be guided by their principles, rather than his own, non-existent ones.
And we already know what kind of friends he chooses.
Socratease on July 4, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Mark my words - Obama is going to try to avoid any debates at all. The frontrunner never wants to debate. I’ll bet he gets away with it too. He can’t debate John McCain even once or he will lose the election. Axelrod knows this. All we will be left with is a lot of TV ads and speeches, and Obama will have twice the money to ram his sweet, centrist image down our throats for two months.
The only hope we may have is that the Denver convention brings the crazy so bad that voters are appalled like they were in 1968.
rockmom on July 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM
I’ve learned to mark your words already. I don’t see how Obama can avoid debates. I think people who customarily do not tune in until the Fall demand it. I hope you are not right about that, and I hope the convention is a political disaster. I can only assume the media is worried about that too, and will limit the coverage as much as possible.
JiangxiDad on July 4, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Obama can’t avoid all debates. They’ve become a tradition.
And imagine the GOP ads. McCain at podium. Empty podium next to him.
Message: “If he’s afraid to take on John McCain in debate, how can he handle al Qaeda? ”
or “If he won’t defend his views in debate, how can he defend this country?”
Wethal on July 4, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Wethal on July 4, 2008 at 12:49 PMNiiiice.
Obama will debate him but he won’t really be debating. He’ll use this technique.
Moderator: Asks any question about anything.
BHO: Rambles for the allotted time but doesn’t answer the question.
McCain and/or moderator: You didn’t answer the question.
BHO: Oh yes I did, you weren’t listening.
Same old same old. He’ll rope-a-dope for 90 minutes and we’ll be none-the-wiser.
What BHO won’t be able to withstand is scrutiny.
Mojave Mark on July 4, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Idiots, all of em. Can’t wait till the Gray Lady finally goes under.
Neo on July 4, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Ditto’s Neo… If ever a public flogging was in order, the flogging of the editorial staff at the NYT would draw record crowds. Sleazy scumbags, every one of them!
Keemo on July 4, 2008 at 12:58 PM
The really ironic thing is that McCain would, due to years of practice, probably be able to give more direct answers. McCain’s been doing townhalls in his campaign where he has to answer questions extemporaneously.
So, the disorganized guy who rambles on and on wouldn’t be the old one. The sharper answers would be coming from the guy with white hair.
Wethal on July 4, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Now,now. Flogging is torture and clearly against the Eighth Amendment. On the other hand, in my opinion, the New York Times editorial board is guilty of treason for telling the terrorists how we track money going to them. The death penalty is a possible punishment for treason.
thuja on July 4, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Gack! the sick image of vanity “like the very first time”–
SPARE US!
maverick muse on July 4, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Obambi’s strategy is classical stuff but urgently needed in his case. Since, legislatively, he is a blank slate he can move to the center and hope that will induce a disgruntled electorate to vote the generic ticket which favors the Dhimmis by 12 to 15 points. McCain will be completely drowned out by a massive publicity campaign in which he will not be financially able to compete being restricted by his public financing pledge and he’ll not even be able to explain that to the people once the real campaign starts. TV will be a continuous BHO soap opera about undefined change and unfunded socialist goodies for the plebeians paid for by the ‘rich’ while McCain buys will be short 15 second spots in limited markets.
The only hope McCain has is that the people sicken of the BHO message, the only one they’ll hear, before the election since Obambi will avoid any real debates unless some unforeseen event causes his poll numbers into free fall.
Annar on July 4, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Correction: replace ’causes’ to ‘pushes’ in the last line of my previous post.
Annar on July 4, 2008 at 1:41 PM
I think Obama needs a revised logo that’s a wee bit more nuanced for this campaign.
Here’s my suggestion.
notta_dhimmi on July 4, 2008 at 1:52 PM
I’m not so sure that’s going to be true. Just remember that it’s not middle America sending all that money to Barry. It’s the hard core Left.
I think that’s the message the Times was sending.
Myself, I think Barry’s in a box few see yet. If he stays left, he’ll be awash in cash to shower us all with a message that can’t win; but if he moves right, his cash cow is going to dry up but quick.
And with no public funds to fall back on, he’s got no real choice but to keep the Left happy.
Typhoon on July 4, 2008 at 1:52 PM
I am very curious to see how the media coverage of the DNC convention goes. I expect some - perhaps a great deal of - looniness to occur since the lefties think their time has finally come. Will the media’s urge to protect Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s image win out, causing them to limit coverage and only show the relatively sane stuff; or will the urge to fill the 24 hr news cycle with gawk-worthy, ratings-raising insanity overwhelm them?
aero on July 4, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Virgin? Bill Ayres got Hussein’s cherry years ago.
Akzed on July 4, 2008 at 2:02 PM
thuja on July 4, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Can we compromise please; a public flogging followed by a public trial for the crime of treason. We could also throw in a public trial for the Goracle, for defacing America while on foreign soil, as well as scamming millions of dollars from American businesses & institutions.
Enough is enough; let’s put these scumbags where they belong, in front of the American people.
Keemo on July 4, 2008 at 2:09 PM
rockmom, the Dems already have made plans to keep demonstrators away from convention attendees with fences. They can only demonstrate in designated areas, I think. Basically, the loonies will be caged in. Should be more fun to watch than going to the zoo. I do wonder how much airtime the MSM will give them. MSM mostly appears still to be in the tank for Obama.
Wethal on July 4, 2008 at 2:15 PM
As for Mr. Obama “redefining” the issues, don’t forget about his “clarification” on NAFTA. Indeed, his clear statement on renegotiating NAFTA has become in the words of either he or his spokesman, and as predicted by just about everyone, simply campaign rhetoric.
mark on July 4, 2008 at 2:16 PM
The NY Times on 7/4/2008: “Obama broke his promise.”
The NY Times on 10/1/2008: “Obama is a god-being greater than any human who has ever existed and MUST be our next president!”
Django on July 4, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Could be. Or is the Editorial Board of the Times just another collection of useful idiots, as I suggested of Obambi?
MrLynn on July 3, 2008 at 8:26 PM
If Obambi’s handlers can get him elected by pandering to the center, and even the right, they will do so, and his glazed-eye followers will trail along, even the NY Times.
Hard to imagine Axelrod isn’t whispering behind his hand, “Don’t worry. He’s really one of us—he’ll do whatever we say once we get the White House.”
MrLynn on July 4, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Yet another re-imaging of the Obama ‘08 logo.
;-)
notta_dhimmi on July 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Looks like Obama has the Dems by the short hairs. That would be funny if he didn’t have the rest of us by them as well.
baldilocks on July 4, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Great movie.
————–
The TigerHawk take must be the right one: the Times is trying to help Bambi fool the rubes into believing his flip-flops are real. But they can’t believe it’s real.
Clinton was a centrist Dem, until he got into office, then he was a typical lefty (until he lost Congress). Bambi is farther left than Clinton.
misterpeasea on July 4, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Here is the link to the letter sent to Senator Obama about his flip flop on a deal to support Lobbying reform. I don’t know if Senator McCain wrote it but whoever did is pretty darn good.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/politics/main1289745.shtml
Cindy Munford on July 4, 2008 at 3:44 PM
LOL!
O’flipper indeed.
profitsbeard on July 4, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Clinton actually WAS a centrist. But he was unable to govern as one at first. He took office along with a rabidly liberal Democrat-controlled Congress which was itching for payback after 12 years of Reagan-Bush. Clinton was inept and unable to stand up to them. So they passed a gun control bill, followed by the biggest tax increase in U.S. history. That resulted in the Republicans winning 52 seats and control of the House in 1994. Only AFTER that was Clinton able to govern as a centrist, mostly because he was scared shitless by the election of 1994. He enraged the liberal base of the Democratic Party by signing the welfare reform bill in 1996. He campaigned on welfare reform in 1992 but it took a Republican Congress to write the bill that he signed.
Obama, if elected, will have a similarly rabid and savvy liberal majority in Congress, only he agrees with them way more than Clinton did in 1993-94. That’s what McCain needs to be talking about. Obama will just let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid govern the country, while he gives a few nice speeches once in a while. If that doesn’t scare the crap out of you, I don’t know what will!
rockmom on July 4, 2008 at 4:33 PM
DNC: Change to please Marx.
Constitutional conservatives: Preserve our Heritage.
maverick muse on July 4, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Obama needs the white middle class Hillary won, the bitter guns and religion clingers.
Racial make up of U.S. in 2006:
White 66%, Black 12.4, Hispanic 6, Asian 4.4 Multi racial 2, others 1%.
Give him 95% black vote he still needs at least 45% to 48% of all others based on above %.
If not I don’t see how he can win thus he leaps to the middle and cries racism at every opportunity while sending his surrogates to disparage a true war heros service thus trying to make the race for the Whitehouse a beauty contest rather than about policy. On policy he losses on looks he wins. Thats why McCain is not the republicans best candidate.
Hillary figured it out too late will McCain do the same?
dhunter on July 4, 2008 at 6:06 PM
At least the NYT is honest about their loyalties.
KGB on July 4, 2008 at 6:53 PM
So the NYT found that Obama’s really a bum lay! LMAO! Really though, does anyone seriously read that traitorous, irrelevant, POS of a rag anymore???
byteshredder on July 5, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Obambi is backing the anti-war lefties into a corner. They have no where to go while Obambi reviews his stance on Iraq. Of course there is still room under the bus with all of his other “friends and relatives” that are not who he knew when he began his campaign.
volsense on July 5, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Exactly what are those differences?
drjohn on July 5, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Isn’t it nice being a Liberal? You can change your position 47,000 times without accountability. This ‘NY Times’ “complaint” is an exception and is probably just a publicity stunt to exude “fairness”. Other bloggers are correct in ascertaining that people “pissed off” with Obama are painted into a corner and have no place else to go.
What an edge you have when you can be Gandhi on Monday, Genghis Kahn on Tuesday and Che Guevara on Wednesday.
MaiDee on July 5, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »