NY Times Slams Obama For Being "New And Not Improved"

There has been a lot of talk lately about Barack Obama's changing positions. Arianna highlighted his "perceived move to the center" in a blog this week. A move she says is a mistake. The New York Times' op-ed page went after Obama today for looking "New and Not Improved." Read the first two lines below and the rest of the piece here.

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.

Comments

[Dorraj]

Refresh my memory but is this the same NYT that said yes to the Iraq war. Talk about beng out of touch. You are willing to derail Obama behind campaign reform. Mccain has been cheating borrowing off of this money then going to private financing for a while then finally going to public financing for the GE.
As a democrat, I am utterly convinced liberals are as stupid and out of touch as conservatives. The only difference is they are smart enough to WIN elections.

[bluecoyote]

Great job Obama campaign, instead of the theme of Change, you're going to get tagged as Republican Light. Lay down with the Blue Dogs and you're going to get conservative fleas and not progressive donations!

[meanguy]

is it just me, or does it seem like most of obama's fabled 'change' consists of what happens with his positions?

[Chemwiz]

Odd that the NYT would finally print their negative Obama views on a major holiday so it doesn't get any attention. Oh, Wait...nvmd.

They are right...nothing new about this guy...same old politics and antics.

[AnotherTry]

I've been saying it for weeks folks. Any regulars here are not surprised at all by this shift. Hmmm. And they probably won't be surprised when he loses either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di2RFTrtRTY

[rmcneal103]

This is the same paper that gave us the Bush cheney mouth piece Judy Miller. Go figure.

[bygollymissmolly]

I am sick and tired of the lies that the NYT tells. They are perpetuating the myth that O'bama "promised" to take public financing when he never did. I am quite sure that O'bama would have agreed to taking public financing if Mc'Cain had agreed to stop the 527's. O'bama gave conditions to his acceptance of public financing and the first and foremost was that his opponent had to come to an agreement with him as to terms. Since Mc'Cain refused to disallow the 527's, O'bama was under no obligation to take public financing.

But, I do think O'bama might find that turning down public financing was a mistake. If he continues to give to the finger to his net roots supporters, he may find that his 1.5 million contributors vanish.

[kcam44]

why would he take public financing if he discovered a "gold mine" of internet donors? He's entitled to change his mind, politicians do it all the time. If the Repubs were in this situation, McCain would do the same..no one can tell me that McCain wouldn't do the same if he had the donations pouring in like Obama.

Criticize Obama all you like for changing his mind on this one, but it was smart to do it, despite the criticism. Think about it: why agree to the limit on campaign financing, when sky's the limit on the donors. I'm sure no one knew (including Obama) that the donations would pour in like this.

And yes you're right "miss molly", the media won't focus on the many flip-flops of McCain, he's flip-flopped a lot more than Obama..Mr. Straighttalk is no better than Obama.

HATERS!!!!!

[kinogod]

I think the NYT is on to something. They're just missing the important change in Obama's campaign "promises." What is troubling and far more serious than his "changes in position" is the amount of old-school political cronies who now work and help the Obama campaign, many of them the same political hacks that ran the Kerry and Gore campaigns into the ditch. Funny how their employment by the Obama campaign coincides with this "changed message"

What is this changed message? Is the NYT on to something? The more Obama campaigns for the general, the more I see the core principles he ran on morph like the Clintons. As an Obama supporter I say this: If I wanted a "politicians of the polls" I would have voted for the Clintons. I wanted a politician that stood for core principles and a new kind of politics.

Obama's capitulation on the FISA bill is disturbing and no amount of spin can change that. Other dangerous precedents in his campaign for president include moving toward McCain on Iraq, tallying with the gun lobby, voting for the death penalty in an effort to move away from the Dukakis debacle.

In every of these moves, one sees MORE OF A LESS PRINCIPLED POLITICIAN and LESS OF A NEW LEADER.

[bygollymissmolly]

So, I have a question for the NYT. When are you going to start publishing Mc'Same's numerous flip flops on major issues? When you start doing that, then and only then will I give credence to anything you publish about O'bama.

[paulbikes]

You can buy all kinds of things these days. Is capitalism, is great!

[meanguy]

"You can buy all kinds of things these days. Is capitalism, is great!"

even nominations

[kfdan]

It's so obvious that the Times is shilling for the GOP and their masters ... the very narrow monied elite who have been playing the American people and chipping away at the controls which would diminish their control on the purse strings of America!
We are looking down the rabbit hole Alice!

[3Gs]

I used to have respect for the NYT. Guess it was undeserved.

[SwingVoter]

This is what the media should go after, to get the truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afawZWEtCKc

[sandtats]

The lie that is the Obama flip flop, cooked up by the Mc C camp and spoon fed to the all too eager MSM to disseminate! His stand on the issues of gun control, abortion and Iraq, then and now...THE SAME! Anyone who is a true supporter, ever listened to his townhalls, speeches; who read "Audacity of Hope," already knew this "flip flop" nonsense was nothing more than the press shilling for the "Maverick Man."

Direct quotatioins with sources.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/5/13146/00395/160/546980

[biggeranium]

Have any of the people who are shocked by Obama's vote on the FISA bill or his stance on Iraq, actually READ HIS BOOK?

If not, maybe you should stop shouting, unplug the computer, and read The Audacity of Hope. It's a moving read, and he addresses the nuanced thought processes behind so many decisions that get splashed in the headlines as the ultimate indicators of a person's motives and character.

I am a progressive through and through, and if I'd voted for the candidate who agreed with me on every issue, I'd have voted for Dennis Kucinich. But good governance is not about who agress with me on every issue. Obama's strength is his insistence on discussing the nuances of his positions. Of not boiling his votes and his words down to whatever our spoon-fed culture can digest. Before we whine that our candidate has abandoned his values, we should ask ourselves if we'd taken the time to understand those values in the first place.

As progressives, what we need most is a leader who challenges us, as a nation, to think. It is our collective inability to think that's gotten us in this mess. It's only through a lack of critical thinking that the working and middle classes vote time and again against their own interests. We need a leader who can't be summed up in sound bites. We need this far more than we need an ideologue. This is what we have in Barack Obama.

[eden4barack08]

Hear, Hear!

[kinnycut]

Obama will be one of the most thoughtful Presidents we have had in a half century. This is just another grand example of the media picking little bones to chew on because they can't find anything larger gnaw on.

[deapthrowt]

Obama will barely be remembered as a whisper of history - of one more failed Democratic presidential campaign. They can't even win the easy ones when they have good candidates. They are on a trainwreck of massive proportions with Obama. And that is how your candidate will be remembered - one more failed Dem campaign.

You blew it. You had a winner and kicked her in the teeth. What do you expect now after self-inflicting so much party damage. We differ on your definition of "thoughtful". Obama brought himself down and the Dem Party along with him. An odd start for a political neophyte.

[syrupcore]

A rebuttal to the NYT slam: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/4/21453/60552/374/546774