Have you ever you ever learned that, on some important matter, you agreed with the views of someone whose views you always find repulsive, stupid and reprehensible? I read the lengthy New York Times story about Obama's uselessness in the US Senate yesterday. I was too confused to write. Could it be that NYT -- the liberalest of liberal papers, the international bastion of anti-Americanism, the newspaper of fraud and everything unholy -- was calling Obama a waste of Senate oxygen?
he did not play a significant role in passing much other legislation and disappointed some Democrats for not becoming a more prominent voice in other important debates.
Moreover, the New York Times does more damage to Obama's anti-war claims than any of his Democrat or Republican opponents have done:
He disappointed some Democrats by not taking a more prominent role opposing the war - he voted against a troop withdrawal proposal by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin in June 2006, arguing that a firm date for withdrawal would hamstring diplomats and military commanders in the field.
After reading the article, I'm left with the impression that Obama would be the kind of president America needs when all is right with the world. In other words, the 1990s, when an American SWOT analysis reveals many Strengths and Opportunities but few Weaknesses or Threats.
In a time of trouble, domestic or foreign, America would suffer greatly from a facial president, a politician-turned-actor. It would be Jimmy Carter all over again, except with Muslim barbarians at the gate.
As if being called a do-nothing Senator by America's most liberal newspaper weren't bad enough, Ed Morrissey blogs that The Baltimore Sun has discovered Obama's lied, again, about his financial ties to Tony Rezko. Yesterday, the foreign policy adviser forced to resign from Obama's campaign after she called Hillary a "monster," turned on her former master by declaring that Obama has no plans for Iraq [Gateway Pundit].