The New York Times Won't Be Satisfied Until Obama Loses

I've finally figured out why McShame and Bible Spice keep attacking the New York Times as pro-Obama:

They're trying desperately to keep everyone from figuring out that the Times is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.

Some of us have suspected it for a while - Judith Miller, David Brooks and Bill Kristol being primary evidence - but today's The Caucus piece comparing Obama's temperament to Bill Clinton's is overwhelming proof they're in the tank for repugs.

It starts out deceptively complimentary.

But Senator Barack Obama is a very different kind of candidate, judging by his performance at his own town-hall-style debate on Tuesday night and on the campaign trail. There are no volcanic explosions with Mr. Obama, rarely any finger-waving or lip-biting, and far less of the undisciplined campaigning that Mr. Clinton perfected.

SNIP

Mr. Obama’s response has been to keep firm control of his public image: That of a very cool customer, someone who is deliberative and not easily distracted, who is willing to risk appearing a bit remote if it means that at the same time he appears unruffled by pressure and crisis.

Obama advisers say that, just as Mr. Clinton’s temperament worked for him against the patrician Mr. Bush and the cranky Mr. Perot, Mr. Obama’s steadiness is proving effective in this race against Mr. McCain. These advisers note, too, that Mr. Clinton only won a plurality of the general election vote in the three-way contest; a majority of the nation never voted for him. The advisers say they believe that Mr. Obama’s temperament is more broadly appealing than Mr. Clinton’s was, and that it will help him win over larger swaths of the electorate.

But the orders from Republican Party Headquarters are clear: No praise of Obama allowed unless followed by a patronizing, cancelling "But ..."

And yet: At a time of real financial turmoil for so many Americans, is there really not much desire for a feel-your-pain politician? At the town hall debate Tuesday night, Mr. Obama largely stuck to facts, figures, and programmatic detail as he talked about the economy and domestic issues. He didn’t take advantage of the town hall format to show a bit of leg, humanity-wise. It was enough to make anxious voters feel a little lonely, whereas Mr. Clinton would have offered a psychic hug.

Are you fucking kidding me? I've lost my job, the sheriff is tossing my belongings out in the yard, my spouse is running up six-figure bills for cancer treatment our insurer won't cover, and the NY Times thinks what I need most is a HUG?!

It gets worse.

“Obama did not vary his tone of voice at all — it’s one of his main problems in connecting,” said Ruth Sherman, a political communications consultant. “It is a beautiful voice, with lots of highs and lows of pitch, but the general tone is always the same. There is much, much more he could do, just with his voice, to increase his impact.”

Yeah, I've maxed out my contributions to Obama, I spend every spare minute knocking on doors for him, but now that I read in the New York Times that his voice isn't quite right, I just can't vote for him.

Barack Obama is the most brilliant, talented Democratic politician since JFK, and possibly since FDR. He's run a flawless campaign, something many of us thought we'd never see from a Democratic candidate. He's about to win an election that will change the nation and the world for decades to come.

And the New York Times can't fucking stand it.

Read the whole thing, if you have the stomach for it.

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.