New and Not Improved

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: eskimospy
it's an OP-ED man. Tony Snow has written OP-EDs for the NYT. Why should one bashing Obama be so shocking?

EDIT: Now that I think about it they have 1-2 a week (depending on how many Kristol writes... he's a special guy)

it's not an OP-ED.

Coulda fooled me- it's an editorial, in the opinion section... or have we now redefined that, too?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Dari
That article is stretching things a bit. And their liberal views that are in stark contrast to Mr. Obama's conservative views have nothing to do with flip-flops.

I will admit that the article sets itself up nicely, but there are obvious cracks in their storytelling.

Another empty sycophant post that offers vague criticism without backup. The article is critical of Obama so the kneejerks reflexively kickback without addressing any of the issues raised. "The article is stretching." Where? What did they say that's a stretch? "Obvious cracks in their storytelling" where? or are they so obvious we don't need to examine them? Even the most ardent Obama supporter cannot ignore his recent realignment with the center.

Which poses 1 of 2 problems.

1) Obama says he hasn't shifted, and that his positions now are the same he has been espousing for years in the Senate and in Illinois. If this is true, doesn't anyone find it troubling that we can be surprised by his positions on so basic an issue as the death penalty? Before the SC decision would anyone have guessed liberal Obama would be in favor of expanding capital punishment to crimes other than murder? I never would have guessed that.

2) If he has shifted on all the issues referenced in the article, how does this square with his change mantra? I'm confused now about what exactly his change message is anymore. Is the totality of his "change" that he's going to run a slightly more positive campaign than has been run in the past? I have no problem admitting he ran a "cleaner" campaign than Hillary. She frequently hit low blows, which I have no problem with in politics, but he said he was going to rise above this. To his credit I believe that he has. But is that it? No horrible negative ads or dirty tricks, and that's the extent of the change he'll bring? I never bought into his change message, but I could see how others could. Now, I don't understand how anyone sees him as anything other than just another politician. When's the last time someone felt the hope and inspiration his early speeches usually imparted?

He's still a better choice than McCain, but almost entirely because he's a democrat and the Reps need a spanking for the last 8 years, plus a change in executive power is healthy every now and then, and we're certainly due. But the early adopters have to be feeling a little disappointed lately, especially after the candidate they came to adore in the primaries has slowly faded away.

I think this reader comment to the article encapsulates a lot of Obama supporters' feelings of late:

"I am 46 and for the first time I got involved in a political campaign. Obama, who graduated a year ahead of me from Columbia, inspired me. I felt for the first time there's a chance that passion and common sense and a motivated constituency could rejuvenate the greatness of our country. I heard a presidential candidate say "we are what we've been waiting for," and I thought I understood what the country felt when Kennedy told my parents to ask what they could do for our country.

In Obama, I saw a contemporary who recognized that the greatness of America, the country's most powerful resource, is Americans. I saw a politician who knew that the flaw of the Bush regime was to shut the people out, to tell us not to pay attention, to demand that we leave things to them while we suck down Starbucks on the way to work.

It is with great disappointment that I concede that the Times' editorial is painfully correct. I've been duped again.
? Gary, Arizona"

I don't think Obama's recent shifts will destroy him, or even lose him voters to McCain, the differences that remain are still too stark. But he will take a hit from the far left, the early supporters, and maybe more importantly, he is changing the perception that people had of him. So even if he wins, the blind love affair is pretty much over.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: eskimospy
it's an OP-ED man. Tony Snow has written OP-EDs for the NYT. Why should one bashing Obama be so shocking?

EDIT: Now that I think about it they have 1-2 a week (depending on how many Kristol writes... he's a special guy)

it's not an OP-ED.

Coulda fooled me- it's an editorial, in the opinion section... or have we now redefined that, too?

Well Loki's right to the extent that it is an Editorial by the NYTimes and not an Opinion-Editorial which is usually ascribed to an individual author or personality.

 

[thraashman]

Well I myself am a bit annoyed with some of Obama's shifts he's made recently. Though I can see why he did it. There was no point in filibustering a bill that, at least in the house, passed by a large margin. Personally I think the proper compromise bill would require jail time for a president who illegally issued a presidential order to do the wiretapping.

And really it seems the rest is that the complaint is that Obama is holding much more conservative views than the op-ed would like. Unfortunately the conservatives are trying to pain Obama as mister super liberal. And while if he were mister super liberal he'd actually be the best candidate for president this country has ever had, he is much more centrist than the neocons want to admit. Yes we all know that conservative viewpoints are the worst possible thing to have (I'd personally rather have AIDS than a conservative viewpoint on something).

I like some things about Obama, and dislike some things. As opposed to McCain who I dislike I think everything about, and cannot think of anything I do like about him.

Edit: I thought of something I like about McCain. He's mildy less stupid than Bush, and mildy less maliciously evil than him.

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't actually check, Pro-Jo just said it was an OP-ED so that's what I was going on.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Ever notice how deliberate and measured Obama is when he speaks in reply to a question? People assume its because hes intelligent when hes really just trying to carefully construct answers that don't give away what he really thinks. One half of him is trying to talk while hiding the other half. Obama is as two faced as they come. Even sociopaths can sound the most sincere because they have no guilt (because they have no conscience)

Yeah, that's called intelligence. Something our current president obviously does not have. Maybe you haven't noticed that every single word Obama says is going to be over-analyzed and if possible twisted to mean something other than what he intended. Congrats on trying to connect Obama with sociopaths. That's a new one for me.

Originally posted by: RY62
Hey Super Delegates...It's not too late to dump this fraud.

Political Unity My Ass!

Bwahahahaha! I see you're still clinging to that Hillary 08 campaign sign. She's moved on. Too bad you haven't. :laugh:

Originally posted by: RY62
Hillary is a politician. In this country, she can only wage a legitimate fight for for what she believes as a member of either the Democrat or Republican party. She will do what she has to do to continue and fight another day. I don't give a damn about party unity. I can fight from either side of the aisle and still stay close to center.

Calling everyone who didn't support Obama a racist wasn't working out too good, huh? Now, they were just Republicans all along. What happened? Did people get called racist so often that they began to embrace it? Maybe we'll begin to embrace being called Republicans too.

Let's get this straight. Based on your posts you were (and still are) a rabid Hillary supporter in the primary and now you're celebrating voting McCain in the general? Right. Perfect sense. The kind of sense that explains someone's racial and political views are so easy influenced by name calling.