Legal Commentary

WaPo: Well, sure, Obama's a capital-L Liberal, but Dubya made him be that

By Beldar

This entire WaPo news article is unintentionally funny, mostly because of its discussion of the convergence of interests between Hillary Clinton and John McCain in portraying Barack Obama as a "Liberal." But the funniest part is in the middle, in which ? per "fair and balanced Journalism 101" principles ? the WaPo writers step back to examine the underlying fairness of that portrayal, and the Obama camp's response to it (emphasis mine):

The double-barreled attack has presented Democratic voters with some persistent questions about Obama: Just how liberal is he? And even if he truly is a new kind of candidate, can he avoid being pigeonholed with an old label under sustained assault?

Despite being rated the most liberal senator in 2007 by the National Journal, Obama has sought to confound easy categorization. While his record and platform mostly adhere to a left-leaning Democratic model, he has cast them as a common-sense response to the Bush administration. His ability to appeal to independents and even Republicans has been one of his main attractions for Democrats eager to retake the White House, and a cause for concern among some GOP leaders.

Got that? Well, yes, if you look at, ya know, Obama's record and platform, he's the most liberal candidate the Democrats have fallen in love with since George McGovern. But that's just a "common sense response" to Dubya. (Unstated but necessary assumption as part of this "common sense": Of course, everything bad is Dubya's fault, and Dubya's faults are so bad that they can justify anything by way of response.) Therefore, "pigeonholing" even a pigeon, or engaging in "easy categorization" of someone who (based on his record and platform) is easy to categorize, is something that Team Obama and the Anointed One are justified in seeking to confound (i.e., conceal the truth about).

Full post as published by BeldarBlog on March 26, 2008 (boomark / email).