My buddy TigerHawk has some insightful fun laying out the possible reasons why the Gray Lady is in a snit (at least for public consumption) over Obama’s flip-flops:
Well, in what is obviously a gust-busting turn, the editors of the New York Times are beginning to worry that they are the rubes. In this morning’s lead editorial (“New and Not Improved”), they detail and denounce many of Obama’s post-Hillary pivots to the center. As their irritation builds, I’m thinking that there are only three positions that could explain this editorial. First, that the editors genuinely believe that Obama could win the general election with his primary season policy ideas. It is believable that they think this because they live inside a Manhattan cocoon, but silly. Second, that the editors would rather that Obama lose than compromise his principles. This seems unlikely in the cold light of a November morning, however satisfying it might feel to spew such romantic drivel on the Fourth of July. Or, third, the editors know that Obama’s pivots will be much more believable to the swing voters if the Times denounces them. This theory holds that the editors are pretending to be outraged so as to further deceive the rubes who prefer the Flop to the Flip.
I’ve spent a lot of time in the cocoon recently, so I am going with Choice One. (Having watched the Times during the Clinton years, I discount the possibility of Choice Two. I’d have much more respect for the Times if I thought Choice Three was likely, but no one that shrewd would run the drivel the Times runs every day yet wonder why readership is plummeting. Yeah, definitely Choice One.)