« Rudy Attacks Hillary For -- Gasp! -- Wanting To "Go Back To The Nineties" | Home | Whoops! NRSC Posts -- Then Quickly Takes Down -- Attacks On GOP Leadership Over Immigration »
New York Times: Obama "Fakes Right And Veers Left"
As Ben Smith notes, this is a wonderful quote from today's New York Times piece on Barack Obama's style of basketball playing:
Mr. Obama is left-handed, and his signature move is to fake right and veer left, surprising players used to guarding right-handed competitors.
The obvious double meaning -- that Obama fakes right and veers left politically, too -- is fun enough.
But there's another entertaining layer of meaning here that makes this even more fun. Who are the "players" being "surprised" by Obama's moves? Easy: Centrist Dems, Beltway pundits, all-around D.C. insider types. In other words, the folks who are used to "guarding right-handed competitors" -- that is, taking their cues from Republicans and letting the GOP frame the D.C. narrative -- and hence are getting caught off guard by the astounding success of an unabashed liberal.
Hey, it's Friday.
Advertisement
I don't know that I think Obamda has sufficient seasoning to be president -- though he had seven years in the IL state legislature, against Bushit's six years lounging in the TX governor's office.
But he is without question refreshing, exciting. Man, did he hit back at McCain with the fine details of the "Stroll in Baghdad"!
June 1, 2007 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of good the "seasoning" of Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc has gotten us.
More than any other candidate, Obama represents change. We need change.
June 1, 2007 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lefties rule!
June 1, 2007 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think experience is important - it's just having the right kind of experience. Cheney and Rumsfeld were always right-wing neo-cons serving right-wing chiefs. So they were experienced.
Obama has a different mix of experience. I wouldn't call him un-experienced though. Almost everything he's done - from being a community organizer to a Constitutional Law professor to a State Senator to a Senator - all has relevance to public life.
June 1, 2007 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you listen closely, you can hear Matt Taibbi screaming in horror at this article.
June 1, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, exactly! He doesn't have to be perfect or have "perfect" plans on all the important points. He can make mistakes. All that can be forgiven.
He himself is such a breath of fresh air and that is what these lungs are craving!!!
June 1, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
what has matt written about obama?
June 1, 2007 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it was refreshing to read about Obama's basketball skills, I was just left wondering "Why"? Why is this frontpage news for the Times? It's right up there, in terms of depth, as the piece on the Clinton's marriage and how Rudy is learning to muzzle his inner attack dog. Why?
Don't tell me the election is so far away, and they have to write about something--the nominee is going to be selected by, what, mid-February at this point, so what was the point of all of this?
I probably sound like a grumpy anti-Obama voter--I'm not. I'm just amazed at the editorial decisions that keep getting made at the Times.
June 1, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And even the international flavor of his upbringing is a genuine strength. I do think he's a bit green wrt national politics, but he's as smart a candidate as there's ever been (a law prof called him the smartest student she'd ever had), and he seems to have the desperately needed instinct to hit back with better than he gets, as the McCain exchange illustrates. Whether he really sees the overall crisis in our politics and government is still an open question for me, and the signs are decidedly mixed so far. But as someone who's still shopping, I'd say Obama's probably at the top of my list right now.
June 1, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to CT Voter: It's been said many times that we know everything we need to know about Hillary (and perhaps more) both with respect to policy and personality. So, I don't fault the Times for fleshing out her competitors and helping us learn about their personalities, so long as policy does not get drowned out by the personality pieces. I might have a different view if Hillary herself were averse to all "lifestyle" pieces, but she of course is awfully proud of her campaign song contest, and she cultivates fluffy lifestyle pieces when it appears the piece will be written by a friendly, or at least non-hostile, reporter.
June 1, 2007 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get your point about the Times covering everyone with these personality pieces. I just despise the fact that the fluff in these pieces winds up being mentioned far more times by supposedly responsible journalists than actual substantive issues.
So we're going to have to be reminded about the Clinton's marriage, Rudy's Commanding Daddyness, and how cool Obama is on the court.
Blech, blech, blech.
June 1, 2007 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fluff peices are more informative than detailing, say, a former secretary of energy's repeated successful hostage and diplomatic negotiations. Right? I know I prefer to hear cute sports analogies (that don't seem to really be all that accurate) than a discussion of Title IX intricacies and the COPS program that other candidates have worked on.
So it goes.
June 1, 2007 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
They must be, else how do we explain this proliferation of Oprah-themed pieces passing as "analysis" or "reporting"? Writing about positions, and facts and proposals is just so much hard work, you know? You have to a) think about those issues yourself b) understand them and c) write about them succinctly and coherently.
Sheesh. That's what those uncivil bloggers do. Not real reporters.
June 1, 2007 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just another blow job for Obama by the uncritical main stream press. They created him and his nothing candidacy; now they have to try to keep him hard.
June 1, 2007 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about Obama. It's that the piece is such a fragrant example of "Sweet 'n' Blow" journalism, as he described here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/14096420/the_low_post_the_return_of_evil_campaign_journalism
June 2, 2007 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink