Well, on Independence Day, the New York Times editorial staff not only took on the junior senator from Illinois' recent changes of heart, but did so by implying that maybe he's change you can't believe in.
Sure, cynics will point out this was done on a holiday at the beginning of a three-day weekend making it certain few people will see it.
Though true, the words are indeed there (emphasis added, picture courtesy Politico):
Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things...Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. [...]
The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11. [...]
The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation. [...]
Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.” [...]
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.
We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.
Pretty shocking stuff, wouldn't you agree? After all, if the Times editorial board is going to start pointing out Obama's flaws and flip-flops, this is indeed significant.
On the other hand, if this is a one-time shot across the bow on a day when few people pick up a newspaper, this could be the Times giving rare balance to its publication in order to present itself as not being as biased as most open-minded people know it to be.
Stay tuned.
