Guest post by Scan
Well, it took long enough, but even the New York Times editorial board, author of such recent classics as the Hillary-bashing “The Low Road to Victory”, has come around to an undeniable conclusion: Obama has been disappointing lately. It was published on July 4th, so some people might have missed “New and Not Improved”:
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.
But this seems to be the least of their worries. Like many of us, a bigger concern is his stance (or lack of one) when it comes to FISA:
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. In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.
Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.
If there’s one thing that is obvious in 2008, it’s that our country is ready for a unapologetic Democrat. Not a triangulating politician, not Republican-lite, not a moderate step up from Bush…a Democrat. It is on that front that Obama is failing, and it spells trouble if not corrected. We have to assume that the Republican base will rally around McCain no matter what by the time Rush and the Fox News crew have done their dirty work, so risking an unmotivated progressive base is a big mistake. Yet that is exactly what the past couple of weeks have wrought at this point in the game.
It continues:
The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation. 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.
You get the picture. But here’s the kicker:
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.
Welcome, Times editorial board, to the reality that, to many of us, has been obvious for quite a while. Barack Obama is a talented Democratic politician, but he sure ain’t the transcendent progressive idealist that was described in Axelrod’s brochure. Maybe the fog of hope simply obscured the clear warning signs, but even if this is understandable for some of his newly-disillusioned grassroots supporters, it’s not a good enough excuse for the press not doing their job when it mattered. Whatever the case, the free ride from certain influential members of the mainstream media may be coming to a close.
And somewhere, Hillary is laughing.
Comments are closed.