The most emailed article from the New York Times yesterday was The Two Obamas, detailing the idealism Obama extols against the pragmatism he enacts. Specifically, campaign finance reform, which he effectively crapped on when he reneged on his promise to agree to public financing for the federal election if John McCain agreed to the same. If my brief reading of the government's brochure on Public Financing is correct, this would limit spending in the general election to $10 million ($200,000 per state). As we already know, Obama has superseded even the formidable Clintons when it comes to raising funds, and will surely raise capital many times over the 10 minllion mark.
The Brooks article is somewhat bizarre. Brooks notes of the numerous flipsflops Obama has already made, calling him a "Fast Eddie" who throws his promises under the truck when it's expedient, remarking on the ease with which Obama has sold out "the primary cause of his political life" --and then goes on to maintain this type of political savvy will be necessary to negotiate with other corrupt leaders like Putin.
The question-- if Hillary was excoriated because of her "dirty tricks" and political expediences, why is Obama given a free ride by Brooks? Will other editorialists do the same, admiring the new, harder tone that belies the perception of Obama as "Carter-lite?" Are the expediencies palatable if they're balanced by words of hope?
Photo courtesy New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment