NYT columnist Bob Herbert manages the not inconsequential task of sighing like a weary Washington insider who’s seen everything while simultaneously weeping like a middle schooler jilted at the eighth grade dance over the realization that Barack Obama – the Man Who Came to Change Everything – might just be another politician:
(So) many of Senator Obama‚Äôs strongest supporters are uneasy, upset, dismayed and even angry at the candidate who is now emerging in the bright light of summer…
Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.
On a range of issues – Iraq, SCOTUS, FISA, even partnering with charities run by godbothering christers – Obama has moved (rhetorically at at least) from comfortably secure left/liberal certitudes towards the kinds of positions that might actually get him elected nationally by some portion of the other 70%. This, of course, is entirely contemptible in Herbert’s eyes.
Because people like Herbert aren’t looking for a political win, and all the benefits that come with that win once in office – they’re looking for personal vindication of their worldview. They want to be proven right, no matter what. Because that’s what’s most important.
Obama’s campaign should reach out to him in back channels and whisper that everything will be set right, come January. In the meantime, just lie back and think of national health care.
What happed to dance with what brought you to the dance in the first place? Too looney to go all the way with I guess, afraid that “main street” USA is not ready for the communist/socialist agenda I suspect.
He keeps pushing that middle of the road crap, he looks more and more like the reigning Bush the closer to the center he gets. All he has to do is “modify” his position on those Bush Tax Cuts a little (“I was against them before I was for them” I am sure Kerry won’t mind loaning that excuse out) and take on someone like Cheney as a “Big Oil” insider and he will have the exact same energy policy as Bush (big fat nothing).
Oh, what ever happened to the likes of Hubert Humphrey and Barry Goldwater. Them you knew what they stood for, and they had a full set of bones too, unlike the spineless villains running for office these days.
BT: Jimmy T sends.
Guess whose ox is getting gored now: “He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters —..”
Is Herbert referring to the “bold” flag-on-the-lapel discussions or “principled leadership” during the Wright controversy?
The real reason this disturbs the left is because it reminds them that most of the world _doesn’t_ think like them.
And in their worldview, that’s just WRONG!
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 07/09/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
The speak of national health care reminds me of an article I recently read.
It was a study to determine the ideal time to repair an ACL knee injury after the trauma occurs. It is typical with this type of injury to wait for swelling to subside and some initial rehabilitation. For the comparison they looked at cases from two hospitals. Center A had an avg time to repair of 39.9 weeks. Center B’s avg was 4.4 weeks.
Which makes you wonder why the big disparity. Well, it is simply that Hospital A is in Canada and Hospital B is in the U.S.
In the end the ideal time was determined to be 12 weeks in the study. However, it’s astonishing to me that patients in Canada must wait almost an entire year for their repair. Think of the effect that would have on a young athlete’s career regarding rehabilitation. You are talking of a year till surgery, then 6 months of rehab, so probably 2 years until they can play again, which would significantly hinder development.
Just another example of the ills of a nationalized health system. While lack of health insurance certainly prevents access of some Americans to health care, most nationalized systems prevent or significantly delay access for all citizens.
Oh well, way too big of a topic.
Orthopod, while it may be true that a lack of insurance has some not seeking medical care due to the uninsured costs, there is a statistic I never see that might be interesting. Namely, how many have insurance yet never see a doctor out of choice?
Seems to me the Left side thinks one must seek a medical professional every time you sneeze, and without insurance that’s going to cost you the shirt off your back. The Right, not to be out-done, wants me to be able to buy insurance that includes mental problems as well as infertility, though actively making my wife infertile (which is the whole goal of birth control) isn’t on the menu.
I’m just kind of wondering, for those of us who only see doctors when we’re sick and may go 10 years between visits, what’s the point?
It’s difficult to scare people about things they don’t need. Medical treatment is one of those things — unless you’re sick, what need of you for a doctor?
Honestly, I do not understand this dependence upon doctors to make our lives worthwhile.
– Max
Max,
While you may not have a need for regular visits to your doctor at this point in your life, consider yourself lucky. However, you should still have medical insurance, just like a person should have home owners insurance and car insurance. What is going to happen if you were to get into an accident and required a lengthy hospital stay. This can easily get into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the prospect of this may seem unlikely from your standpoint, I see people every single day who thought the same thing and are now laying in the ICU.
Fortunetly for people who decide to spend their money on other things and forgo medical insurance, they will get the care they need regardless. Meanwhile, the government, the doctors, and everyone who does pay for insurance will foot the bill on their behalf; which is wrong.