New York Times covers for Obama's surrender in Gates Affair

I was half asleep when I started reading this piece in the New York Times by Peter Baker and Helene Cooper. But a few paragraphs in, I woke up with a start.

Remember: This is a news piece:

The Gates case has become the first significant racial controversy Mr. Obama has confronted since being sworn in as the nation's first African-American president. The improvisational handling of it underscored the delicate challenges for a leader who has tried to govern by crossing old lines and emphasizing commonalities over differences.

So that's what Obama has been doing. I never would have guessed.

Advisers said both his sharp statement, which was made at Wednesday night's news conference, and his toned-down remarks on Friday reflected strains of his experiences. He was personally outraged by the arrest and wanted to speak bluntly about it, aides said. And they said he was distressed that his words proved polarizing and contrary to his instincts for conciliation.

If those are Obama's "instincts" I'd had to see him when he's acting like a partisan hack.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that the president emphasizes "commonalities over differences" in anything he has done in 6 months of governance. Only a sycophantic, Obama worshiping reporter (and editor who allowed it) could possibly make such an idiotic claim. Ditto for Obama's supposed "instincts for conciliation." Obama has the instincts of a political jungle creature, having proven that countless times as he has brought "The Chicago Way" to Washington with a vengeance.

The Times just can't bring itself to tell the truth; Obama is backtracking so fast he's in danger of tripping over his Democratic friends on the Hill who are backtracking even faster on health care reform.