NYT columnists lets Obama have it w/ both barrels
Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:26:57 AM PDT
Today's NYT op-ed page is, I suspect, being read w/ satisfaction in Clinton HQ. On the left-hand column of the print edition, Brooks has clearly fallen out of love w/ Obama. In the right-hand corner, Krugman launches his latest in a series of assaults .
The NYT op-ed pages haven't exactly been kind to the Dem front-runner this week. On Monday, Kristol, predictably, let loose on Obama. On Tuesday, Brooks launched his first attack of this week. On Wednesday, MoDo let the Illinoisan have it. In short, Obama has been attacked by 4 different columnists in our paper of record in 5 days.
What's fascinating about these attacks is that they generally share a common theme. Kristol's, Dowd's and Krugman's attacks on Obama focus on his "bitter" comments at the now infamous SF fundraiser. Brooks re-raises the "issue" today as well.
Dowd's diatribe is somewhat forgiveable. MoDo is an equal opportunity lampooner. She bashed HRC's campaign on Sunday, and she poked a little fun at all 3 candidates on 4/6. She's not treating Obama differently than she treats anyone else, and, unlike the other 3 columnists, she's never pretended to be the purveyor of deep thoughts.
Brooks's terms of non-endearment w/ Obama are not surprising, and they are, arguably, a little welcome. Most Kossacks would (correctly) be suspicious about a Dem whom Brooks admired. If Obama has lost Brooks over the course of this campaign, he must be doing something right.
Kristol has been bashing Obama for weeks, which was entirely predictable. They are poles apart on Iraq and on just about every other FP issue that matters. There was some small satisfaction in the fact that Kristol had to print a correction on his 3/17 jeremiad on Rev. Wright's comments.
Krugman, however, is another story. It was understandable that, as an Edwards supporter, he resented Obama's emergence as the viable alternative to HRC. It is understandable that he disagrees w/ Obama on health care mandates. It was not, understandable, however, as to why he concluded early on that the Obama camp was primarily responsible for the ugly tone of the Dem campaign. It was even less understandable that his columns have steadily gone downhill from there.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard Sen. Obama state that McVain has "passed the CIC threshold," but HRC hasn't passed it. I've never heard his spouse shower praise on McVain. I do recall Obama not piling on about Tuzla at Wed's "debate" while HRC piled on about Wright, Ayers, and the "bitter" remarks.
At this point, something much deeper may be at work here. Frank Rich has been favorable to Obama for weeks. Bob Herbert, as would be expected, hailed Obama's brilliant speech on race relations. Otherwise, however, a generally fractious stable of columnists seem to have found consensus in recent days on the proposition that Obama is an elitist who is out of touch w/ ordinary Americans.
These recent NYT columns fit in w/ the approach taken by Gibson/Steph 2 nights ago. Elitism isn't defined by the fact that a candidate's spouse inherited a $100mm beer distributorship fortune, nor is it defined by the fact that a candidate's spouse made $100mm in 7 years giving speeches and writing books. Elitism is defined by one's views on gun ownership and on flag lapel pins.
It is to be expected that Brooks and Kristol would join this chorus. It is unsurprising that MoDo would get her shot in, too. It is, however, profoundly regrettable to see Krugman piling on as well.
