Saturday, January 09, 2016
The Washington Post Endorses Obama
Here is what the Washington Post wrote when they endorsed Obama:
But Mr. Obama, as anyone who reads his books can tell, also has a sophisticated understanding of the world and America’s place in it. He, too, is committed to maintaining U.S. leadership and sticking up for democratic values, as his recent defense of tiny Georgia makes clear. We hope he would navigate between the amoral realism of some in his party and the counterproductive cocksureness of the current administration, especially in its first term. On most policies, such as the need to go after al-Qaeda, check Iran’s nuclear ambitions and fight HIV/AIDS abroad, he differs little from Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain. But he promises defter diplomacy and greater commitment to allies. His team overstates the likelihood that either of those can produce dramatically better results, but both are certainly worth trying.
I do not see a single thing here that has been proven correct.
Why was this written now? Why am I posting it now? I don't know, but it's like watching the innumerable accounts of Nazi defeat on the Hitler channels; we know how it ends but it's just too sweet to stop. Even as we watch it happening again.
Posted by Rodger the Real King of France
From Legal Insurrection, commenting on the total failure of Obama's policies in the Middle East leading ever closer to a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia:
This failure wouldn’t have been possible without a complicit media, creating a myth instead of a candidate. Will the editors of The Washington Post take a critical look at their 2008 endorsement and learn from their mistake before 2016? I wouldn’t count on it.