
The Washington Post, in a very tepid editorial on Obama's choice of Joe Biden states the obvious:
With a knack for self-defeating and insensitive verbosity, Mr. Biden at times has been his own worst enemy. It has been said that, having been lampooned for this filibustering, he became more disciplined. Perhaps, but we saw a glimpse of the old Biden when he met with The Post's editorial board during his short-lived presidential campaign. Asked about failing schools, Mr. Biden seemed to suggest that one reason so many of the District's schools fail is the city's large minority population and contrasted D.C. schools with those in Iowa. "There's less than 1 percent of the population in Iowa that is African American," Mr. Biden said. "There is probably less than 4 or 5 percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with." The Biden campaign quickly issued a statement asserting that the candidate was referring to socioeconomic status, not racial differences. The lesson we took was not to think that Mr. Biden is a racist -- we don't -- but to worry about his tendency to speak too much before he thinks enough.
Ouch! I think that right now there's no better than a 50/50 chance that the Post will endorse Obama for president a couple of months hence in what would be a shocking development for those of us who have been readers of it for forty years. If it does it will be entirely based on the domestic agenda of the Democrats and not on foreign and defense policy even with Biden added to the ticket.
The Biden campaign quickly issued a statement asserting that the candidate was referring to socioeconomic status, not racial differences.
There is an important distinction between judging students by socio-economic status rather than by racial groupings. Obama would agree from what I've read and hopes to do away with racial quotas in favor of socio-economic adjustments.
Uh, no he doesn't but thanks for dropping by.
hence in what would be a shocking development for those of us who have been readers of it for forty years.
and why would that be? go ahead and say it, I have plenty of links ready.
it isnt hard site"washingtonpost.com
you do also know that the post made it's first and only presidencial endorcement 4 years ago with kerry?/ yeha sure you did. 2006 enforced every republician running in virginia.
so where were you for 36 years? LOL
what was that article titled that listed how mccaisn economic polciy would ballon the deficet much worse than obamas..
hmm hard to recall from memory but let me try.
STUDY FINDS OBAMAS ECONOMIC PLAN WILL BALLOON THE DEFCIET.
LOL go ahead and say it... you have already lost that arguement
In his first speech and talk with reporters back in the U.S. after his campaign swing through Europe, Obama said
I am a strong supporter of affirmative action when it is properly structured, so that it is not just a quota, but acknowledging or taking into account some of the hardships and difficulties
communities of color have experienced and continue to experience.Obama said he did not want to see wealthier African-American children getting more breaks than poor white children.
Not just a quota? So, Obama actually supports racial quotas, as long as they aren't just quotas.
You can see why the question is a bit up in the air. I took this to mean that he believes that quotas should not be based on race but rather socio-economic considerations.
No Democratic candidate for president has ever come so close to calling for an end to the era of identity-based affirmative action as has Barack Obama. Since 2004, the first black major party nominee from either party has been offering comments suggesting that economic status should match or even trump race and gender as a criteria for who should benefit from the program — though he has yet to propose a specific policy, let alone one that matches his rhetoric. After four decades of affirmative action, Obama's historic candidacy itself is seen by some as proof that such programs are no longer needed.
Politico, Obama shifts affirmative action rhetoric
By DAVID PAUL KUHN | 8/10/08 8:24 AM EST
If you think that he's going to run on a platform of ending race-based affirmative action I have a bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale. That position is a non-starter in the group rights grievance groups that constitute the Democratic Party.
He also wants to get votes of those that feel affirmative action is no longer needed. I think that he is finessing the situation because this could be an attack point. To say that poor children of all races should be considered on socio-economic grounds instead of awarding middle to upper middle class minority students special privilege, is to take the teeth out of the issue. It is another refinement of a position that may allay some fears.
Allay fears among who? Undecided voters? Maybe. But it would alienate a large chunk of his base.
The Democrats, although scratching their heads, have no choice but to paint a positive face on this comedy of errors. Obama continues to disclose that he is, after all as Wright pointed out, just a politician. He is not the messiah, although that was the image he chose -- and was swallowed -- during the primaries.
Bill:
! think that right now there's no better than a 50/50 chance that the Post will endorse Obama for president a couple of months hence
Yes. And can we then please quit hearing about The "liberal" Washington Post?
Well, there's the editorial page and then there's the news sections. There's no question that under Fred Hiatt and Jackson Diehl the editorial page has become more conservative vis-a-vis national defense and foreign policy issues in a return to the now-lost spirit of the old Democratic Party. It also goes against Demo dogma on trade largely through the influence of the Brit Sebastian Mallaby (now on leave). Not so on domestic issues.
The politics reporting on the news pages is still fairly liberal with such mainstays as Dan Balz. And, of course, we have the inimitable Frank Rich Jr. in the personage of the snarky Dana Milbank whose "divorce" from Keith Olbermann was a recent occasion for much mirth.
What will be interesting to watch is how the paper evolves under the leadership of Donnie Graham's niece Katharine Weymouth and new executive editor Marcus Brauchli who will replace Len Downie. The latter is famous (or infamous depending on one's perspective) for attempting to maintain his objectivity by not voting.
Bill:
So they reject the Dems on foreign policy and they reject the Dems on political economy but otherwise, WaPo is "liberal"?
I really don't see what's "liberal" about Dan Balz and frankly, anyone like Millbank who elevates constant snark over substance isn't properly characterized as "liberal" anymore than Maureen Dowd is (despite her great column today).
Yes.
Milbank wrote one snarky "sketch" about Barry. Otherwise, his poison pen has been aimed reliably at Republicans. All I can about Balz is you have haven't been reading him very closely, especially "analysis" pieces like this which suggests that ads pointing out some of Obama's less flattering associations and posturings are somehow "negative" in the sense of being unfair. And Obama a "difficult target hit"? Now that's funny. And we won't even get into the now-bought out Tom Edsall or Walter Pincus.
Bill:
Balz's analysis seem's pretty straightforward reporting to me.
Where does Balz claim going negative on Obama is "unfair"?
More fundamentally, McCain risks damaging his reputation as a politician who has eschewed the politics of negativity. But what was considered out of bounds in a Democratic primary campaign may be less so in a general-election race, in which other voters come into play. McCain will have to make some difficult judgments about this in the final 82 days.
Oddly enough, the risk he identified appears to have been borne out according to the WSJ poll this week. It might be a price McCain has to pay and that he's willing to pay, but it's still a risk Balz accurately analyzed.
Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. For instance this is simply a ridiculous statement:
Obama has proven over this long campaign to be a difficult target to hit -- at least on anything more than an occasional basis. So the mileage may be limited long term.
Obama peaked in the Potomac Primaries way back yonder in late February. Hill then went on the attack and scored and McCain's been scoring as well. I'm not sure where Balz is coming from in suggesting that they haven't.
Bill:
What's wrong with that? There's been some wobbling and statistical noise, but he's been in that range of 45% to 48% in the national polls since while McCain has been in the 43% to 46% range, even after and including the most intensely competitive major-party primary since maybe before the New Deal.
Obama IS a hard target to hit. He's taken everthing the Clintons had and he's taking everything Rove(Schmidt) have and he's still leading. Small margin, maybe, but a lead's a lead.
A lead that by every historical indicator (and please don't bother with the racism business) should be far larger than it is. Right now if I were Axelrod and Plouffe I'd be praying that Fay's remnants go crazy and move due NW and coalesce over Denver on Thursday night occasioning the moving of the coronation to a more intimate setting.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |