A Lightbulb Goes off over the NY Times Head

Why is this such a surprise? There aren't enough hard-core lefties to elect anyone. Obama had to move to the center, or more to the truth, pretend to move to the center, so he can garner more votes. Obama is and isn't a lot of things, but he's smart enough to know that. Apparently, the Left isn't.

Could we just say "Barry Lied; Hope Died"?

Hey, only way a Marxist can get elected is to lie about what he believes. If he wins,God help us!

We should not be shocked by the flip-flops of the left, because it is a normal event for them. Just review these two paragraphs that appear back to back from the editorial:

"We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court's barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder." This is referencing raping of a child and if you did not know the text it is a very good question.

"What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?" Now they want no harm to a child by a person not valuing that life.

The left will grasp what ever statement they want and turn or delete its meaning to accommodate their view.

Bob Spencer

This editorial illustrates most clearly that the NYT is committed to-the-death to it's left-socialist views and political agenda. The final edition of the NYT cannot come too soon.
As for Obama, he is who many recognized him as; a left wing neo-Clinton, but with less savvy than Bill had. Obama's superficial "principles" (apparently, the only kind he has), and his obvious attempt at straddling those across the far left and center may well erode his pedestal in both those political worlds. By November instead of "The Obama", hopefully he may be viewed by most as Barack-just- another-political-hack.

"We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups' MISREADING [emphasis mine] of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms."

And some people take this rag seriously?

The real queston is why isn't the NYT sold in racks next to the checkout counter like all the other tabloids?

"Why is this such a surprise?"

Because leftists, other than the sort who actually run for public office, will believe anything they're told as long as it's what they already want to hear. Barack Obama positioned himself so as to appeal to the Left's penchant for believing its fantasies; having departed from their ideals, he's forced them to awaken from their dreams.

Never underestimate the power of wishful thinking. The less well moored you are to reality, the more prone you are to believing a pretty lie -- and the more shocked you'll be upon discovering the truth.

He'll lose 56 out of the 57 states.

Happy Fourth.

Hey, cut the NY Times a little slack. At least they came down on him for rejecting public financing and the spending limits that go with it. I half-expected them to rationalize, if not justify, it with the "money is speech" maxim.
See how they perform the rest of the way. Given that they're not likely ever to support McCain, this looks like a scolding that has no real teeth to it. Like a parent loves a child, the NYT will support Obama regardless of whether ro not they disapprove of what he does.

jg: I hope you're right but I fear you're not.

In the July 4 edition of the NY Times there is an above the fold story about the radical lefts holiest of holies: "withdraw the troops from Iraq immediately". The story discusses Obama's shift on his "end the Iraq war now, bring the troops home" policy. This shift should be a major problem for the NYT, the Marxist left and the elitist University types. Furthermore, I gather from Obama's expanded "end the war policy" that those troops removed from Iraq during the first months of an Obama administration will be sent to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban as part of the new mission given to the Joint Chiefs on President Obamas first day in office. I am sure the radical left is just jumping for joy at that prospect. This will be extremely interesting to observe as it all plays out in the pages of the NYT.

The NYT may also be loosening a bit because of its 100% leftism - and fear that ad dollars will continue to plummet.

Tell the NYT to look up the word liar.
Nuf said.

I am cynical in my old age I guess, but I see this as the NYT trying to save it's ass by moving over to the truth.
And for anyone thinking "just another right-winger"; Messrs. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Monroe, Madison, and all the other "right-wingers" and I, thank you on this 4th of July American birthday.

The New York Times still doesn't understand that Obama's concept of "inclusion" has only meant that there'd be room for EVERYBODY under his bus.

Count this moderate happy about Obama's lean toward the center. I honestly think that the moderate Obama is the real Obama..he is a pragmatist that wants to be a President to all Americans most of whom lean center-right.

Obama's shifts also demonstrate that he isn't in the left's pocket. He still says that he wants out of Iraq with no premanent bases unlike McCain. Obama wants to be careful getting out as he should be.

Obama isn't running for a Carter third term, he is running for a Clinton third term. My prediction for his VP is that he will choose a blue-dawg with military/foreign policy experience.

BTW, enough with inflexibilty in a President, that was one of Bush's biggest liabilities, he was inflexible.

This is not the BHO that I remember.Uh-oh yes it is.

Don't kid yourself.this guy is as left as it gets.He's only trying to sucker the center to vote for him. Once he's in look out and God help us.