Frank Rich: It's A Bird, It's A Plane...

[Doctor_J]

NOT since Clark Kent changed in a phone booth has there been an instant image makeover to match Barack Obama’s in the aftermath of his health care victory. “He went from Jimmy Carter to F.D.R. in just a fortnight,” said one of the “Game Change” authors, Mark Halperin, on MSNBC. “Look at the steam in the man’s stride!” exclaimed Chris Matthews. “Is it just me, or does Barack Obama seem different since health care passed?” wrote Peter Beinart in The Daily Beast, which, like The Financial Times, ran an illustration portraying the gangly president as a newly bulked-up Superman.

...

But what is unquestionably true is my friend’s underlying premise — that the Obama we see now is generally consistent with the one he presented in the 2008 campaign. Many, if not all, of the positions that have angered liberals since he entered the White House line up with his positions then, including his stubborn and futile faith in the prospect of bipartisanship in Washington.

When the 2008 Obama called Afghanistan an essential war and vowed to take out terrorist havens in Pakistan, he wasn’t just posturing to prove he was as hawkish as Hillary Clinton — which is what some chose to hear. Though he nominally supported a public option as a plank of health care reform, it was not a high priority and he rarely mentioned it, according to a review of his campaign speeches, interviews and debates by Sam Stein of The Huffington Post. Obama never said anything to suggest that he was interested in economic interventionism as bold as, say, the potential nationalization of failing banks. He was unambiguous in his professed opposition to same-sex marriage and largely silent on gun control. And as Jake Tapper of ABC News chronicled last week, Obama had even opened the door to offshore oil drilling in the weeks before Election Day.

Entire piece:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04rich.html?pagewanted=1

[NJmaverick]

1. K&R

[pundaint]

2. Nice try Frank. We heard what he wanted us to hear, and you sound like his lawyer, not an observer.

Changing positions on election eve after lying to take the nomination from more progressives is no less acceptable than changing after. And now that we know he will misstate his positions just to grab, and now keep power, his lies will be less effective. We know what we want, and we see what he has done. Next time We will decide if the People choose to rule, or if We will give our power over to the service of corporate goals. The Democratic Party needs to decide whether to court the People or the Corporations. They're clearly betting on the continued gullibility of the People.


People - is that a good bet for them? And it's weird that gullibility isn't in the dictionary.