. . . which has some significant implications for those who think either (a) that he's going to be crowned rather than elected or that (b) John McCain had no chance against him.
That the New York Times runs Obama's Star Not So Bright in Senate is important because it is not a hit piece.
Instead, it's a careful, low-key consideration of his brief and uninspiring record in the US Senate, where he seemingly spent more time raising money than pursuing legislation, and didn't exactly live up to his own press releases as the poster boy for ethics reform:
Now it's not surprising that Lindsey Graham would criticize Obama, but it is somewhat astounding that the NYT makes the point that Obama broke his word to the bipartisan group before the Graham comment is presented.
What I take from all this is the observation that the media honeymoon for Barack Obama is--as it should be--ending.
That has some very real implications for the general election--assuming of course that the Senator from Illinois actually manages to secure the nomination.
That the New York Times runs Obama's Star Not So Bright in Senate is important because it is not a hit piece.
Instead, it's a careful, low-key consideration of his brief and uninspiring record in the US Senate, where he seemingly spent more time raising money than pursuing legislation, and didn't exactly live up to his own press releases as the poster boy for ethics reform:
He joined a bipartisan group, which included Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and Mr. Kennedy, that agreed to stick to a final compromise bill even though it was sure to face challenges from interest groups on both sides. Yet when the measure reached the floor, Mr. Obama distanced himself from the compromise, advocating changes sought by labor groups. The bill collapsed.
To some in the bipartisan coalition, Mr. Obama’s move showed an unwillingness to take a tough stand.
“He folded like a cheap suit,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, a close ally of Mr. McCain. “What it showed me is you are not an agent of change. Because to really change things in this place you have to get beat up now and then.”
Now it's not surprising that Lindsey Graham would criticize Obama, but it is somewhat astounding that the NYT makes the point that Obama broke his word to the bipartisan group before the Graham comment is presented.
What I take from all this is the observation that the media honeymoon for Barack Obama is--as it should be--ending.
That has some very real implications for the general election--assuming of course that the Senator from Illinois actually manages to secure the nomination.
Comments
One could also suggest President Kennedy spent eight years in the Senate doing very little and the consensus of historians seems to be he did OK as president.
HRC, by contrast (the candidate, that is, not the group), who bring somewhere between 35 years and a lifetime of experience with things locked up in her husband's archive but that seem to have involved living with him, is faulted by the some day's NYT for being unable to effectively run the only thing she's had documented executive experience of- her 700 person $170m and counting campaign.
Hell, if I got to the US Senate and found most of it involved being lectured by Robert C. Byrd all day, I'd run for president too.
I don't have to lampoon the she-Clinton's experience, nor does the NYT: she does that just fine by herself.