Obama '08?

"He is the brilliant young black man as American dream," wrote Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, whose hatred of Hillary Clinton is limitless. But with the Clinton campaign now wounded and Obama grabbing the inside track on the nomination, Noonan quickly flip-flopped. In her February 22 column, she suggested the Obamas are self-centered "snobs" who can't relate to "normal Americans." (Bill Kristol is now hitting that nasty theme as well.)

New York Times Republican columnist David Brooks performed a similar pivot. Last year, he praised Obama effusively while urging him to take on Clinton for the Democratic nomination: "Whether you're liberal or conservative, you should hope Barack Obama runs for president."

More recently, in January, Brooks wrote of how Obama "offer[s] a politics that is grand and inspiring" and noted Obama's rhetoric about "the high road versus the low road; inspiration versus calculation; future versus the past; and service versus selfishness."

Then last week, the columnist showed his true partisan colors, the same colors he and an army of others will be waving for months to come. New narrative: Obama is an overhyped, waffling phony, and his followers are delusional suckers. To accentuate the mocking tone, Brooks in his column referred to Obama as "the Hope Pope," "His Hopeness," "The Chosen One," "The Presence," "The Changemaker," and the "High Deacon of Unity."

COLBERT: Latest polls have his approval rating at 19 percent, which is low for a President but very high for a fetish.

Republican columnists are going to write mean things about Obama?

Oh Noes~!!!!!1!!!!!one!!!

What will his campaign do? Why, I can't imagine they expected this at all.

Cycloptichorn

Oh Noes~!!!!!1!!!!!one!!!

Is Ohio going to be able to count the votes this time without triggering any conspiracy theories?

Ohio, like the rest of the country, has been working hard to end the Election Day delays and errors that have done so much to undermine confidence in our democracy. Authorities here have spent well over $100 million on new voting machines, none of which the secretary of state regards as reliable.

While we're at it, would you please explain the Texas primaucus?

The primaucus is a large, featherless bird that feeds on roadkill and ethanol.

Seriously?

While Texas Republicans have a rather straight winner-take-all primary system, the Texas Democrats have added a few curlicues here, a bunch of furbelows there and wound up with something that resembles one of the more unfortunate dresses at the Academy Awards. Tuesday there will be a primary. Then as soon as the polls close there will be caucuses. Then there will be some conventions and an apportioning of delegates that will be understood only by people with doctorates in physics.

In the Senate, Mr. Obama distinguished himself by making civil liberties one of his legislative priorities. He co-sponsored a bipartisan reform bill that would have cured the worst excesses of the Patriot Act by meaningfully tightening the standards for warrantless surveillance. Once again, he helped encourage a coalition of civil-libertarian liberals and libertarian conservatives. The effort failed when Hillary Clinton joined 13 other Democrats in supporting a Republican motion to cut off debate on amendments to the Patriot Act.

That wasn't the first time Mrs. Clinton tacked to the center in a civil-liberties debate. In 2005, she co-sponsored a bill that would have made it a federal crime to intimidate someone by burning a flag, even though the Supreme Court had struck down similar laws in the past. (Mr. Obama supported a narrower bill that would have satisfied the Constitution.) And Mrs. Clinton opposed a moderate proposal by the United States Sentencing Commission that would have retroactively reduced the draconian penalties for possession of crack cocaine ?- a proposal supported by Mr. Obama, and by liberal as well as conservative judges.

Here's a serious argument in favor of Obama that was is new to me -- maybe it's new to others as well: Obama's legislative record is consistent in its civil libertarianism where Clinton's has not. The New York Times has an Op-Ed on this, which I found pretty interesting. An excerpt:

In the New York Time, Jeffrey Rosen wrote:

In the Senate, Mr. Obama distinguished himself by making civil liberties one of his legislative priorities. He co-sponsored a bipartisan reform bill that would have cured the worst excesses of the Patriot Act by meaningfully tightening the standards for warrantless surveillance. Once again, he helped encourage a coalition of civil-libertarian liberals and libertarian conservatives. The effort failed when Hillary Clinton joined 13 other Democrats in supporting a Republican motion to cut off debate on amendments to the Patriot Act.

That wasn't the first time Mrs. Clinton tacked to the center in a civil-liberties debate. In 2005, she co-sponsored a bill that would have made it a federal crime to intimidate someone by burning a flag, even though the Supreme Court had struck down similar laws in the past. (Mr. Obama supported a narrower bill that would have satisfied the Constitution.) And Mrs. Clinton opposed a moderate proposal by the United States Sentencing Commission that would have retroactively reduced the draconian penalties for possession of crack cocaine ?- a proposal supported by Mr. Obama, and by liberal as well as conservative judges.

Here's the source again

Since it is pretty clear that Obama does better than Hillary as respects support from the "better educated," it's reasonable to assume that there is some sort of trend herein, but I think it's a mistake to assume that the trend is "smart and knowledgable people," overwhelmingly, support Obama.

I certainly can understand why Obama supporters might wish to believe that they are members of a truly elite group, but this is really a silly notion

Thomas wrote:

Here's a serious argument in favor of Obama that was is new to me -- maybe it's new to others as well: Obama's legislative record is consistent in its civil libertarianism where Clinton's has not. The New York Times has an Op-Ed on this, which I found pretty interesting. An excerpt:

In the New York Time, Jeffrey Rosen wrote:

In the Senate, Mr. Obama distinguished himself by making civil liberties one of his legislative priorities. He co-sponsored a bipartisan reform bill that would have cured the worst excesses of the Patriot Act by meaningfully tightening the standards for warrantless surveillance. Once again, he helped encourage a coalition of civil-libertarian liberals and libertarian conservatives. The effort failed when Hillary Clinton joined 13 other Democrats in supporting a Republican motion to cut off debate on amendments to the Patriot Act.

That wasn't the first time Mrs. Clinton tacked to the center in a civil-liberties debate. In 2005, she co-sponsored a bill that would have made it a federal crime to intimidate someone by burning a flag, even though the Supreme Court had struck down similar laws in the past. (Mr. Obama supported a narrower bill that would have satisfied the Constitution.) And Mrs. Clinton opposed a moderate proposal by the United States Sentencing Commission that would have retroactively reduced the draconian penalties for possession of crack cocaine ?- a proposal supported by Mr. Obama, and by liberal as well as conservative judges.

Here's the source again

Not (completely) news to me but glad to see it laid out like that.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oh Noes~!!!!!1!!!!!one!!!

Cyclops, you're hitting the sauce early, even for a Saturday ...

Now, with that information available, why would anybody in their right minds vote for Hillary?

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oh Noes~!!!!!1!!!!!one!!!

Cyclops, you're hitting the sauce early, even for a Saturday ...

Tico joins Teeny in the "I dont get irony/parody corner"...