The New Republic

Jonathan, the only real question this raises is whether you simply have not been reading the Post for the last three years, or if you're more like the allegorical frog who comfortably boils to death because the water is heated slowly rather than all at once. Both the quantity and the quality of reporting has been declining steadily and noticeably at the Post for some time now, and the quality of the editing -- from simple copyediting and fact-checking to editorial direction at the highest levels -- has declined even faster. In the last 8 months, almost every week brings examples like this one of the Post offering work that is no better than any given local TV news broadcast.

With the exceptions of the weekly spirits and automotive columns, and the occasional report from Tom Ricks, the WaPo has become a decidedly mediocre newspaper, an East Coast equivalent of the Des Moines Register or the Minneapolis StarTribune. On sports and local government news, the Washington Times cleans the Post's clock, and on national news the Post has lately taken second fiddle to the LA Times (?!) on a number of stories that ought to be right in the Post's wheelhouse. If you want to know how bad the Post has become, listen to the local news on WAMU's "Morning Edition" broadcast for a week. As recently as last spring, nearly every local story reported by WAMU was ripped straight from that morning's Post. Today, that's down to about half. The Post has become so poor that lazy radio reporters don't even bother plagiarizing it anymore.  

- rhubarbs

August 5, 2009 at 10:40am

Flawless reasoning from the Washington Post. Six months into his presidency and the president has sent the economy into the ditch. This type of nonsense suits me fine. It was the same sort of bullshit we were fed after Clinton passed the Zero Budget Deficit package. 40 million jobs later, the Republicans and the media seemed like a bunch of naysaying fuckwits. Same thing here. The economy will not stay down, and when it bounces back, watch the roaches scatter under the fridge and start talking about the "Bush Recovery."

- mpatrickhendri

August 5, 2009 at 11:01am

jc:

Look, clearly there are people who have turned against Obama. But their opinion that he has failed the country or broken his promises is just that -- an opinion, not a fact.

george:

All moral and politcal valuations of human behavour are merely opinions. They can never be other than that. Thus my assessment of your assessment of Cleland's assessment of Obama's domestic and foreign policy can never be pinned down objectively. We all sit perched on ever evolving and changing points of view.

But who can deny that, thus far, Obama the president is clearly at odds with Obama the candidate on the campaign trail. And given the breadth of that gap it is reasonable to suggest he is either the consummate liar or a flagrant hypocrite.

However, in suggesting this I have no illusion it can be substantiated as an "incontroverible fact". But we can get a lot closer to that when we talk about the "broken promises".

If we wanted more of the same BushWorld agenda in the voting booth we would have pulled the lever for McCain and Palin. On core economic and foreign policy issues, Obama has chosen to extend what the Bush administration started. And on top of that he even refuses to hold BushWorld accountable for the laws they broke in shredding the Constitution.

Sure, we can argue over whether or not Obama has "failed the country". After all, success and failure are calibrated to be very different things for liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans.

Sandhya Somashekhar:

Obama pledged to change a Washington culture that favored corporations and the connected and instead lift families such as the one sitting next to Cleland out of their economic funk. Rather, she said, Obama has backed billions of dollars to banks that continue to "act like they're broke" and started the country down a path that Cleland said she thinks will lead to more grief for the middle class.

george:

Is this true or not? Of course it is. You would have to be deep in denial to argue otherwise.

Obama the President may move closer to Obama the candidate in the months ahead. But so far the only real "change" his has brought to the White House is...skin deep?  

Andrew Gavin Marshall at the Global Research web site:

Recently, there has been much discussion about Barack Obama having possibly attended the recent Bilderberg conference in Virginia. This speculation arose when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sneaked off for a secretive meeting while in Virginia. As the AP reported, "Reporters traveling with Obama sensed something might be happening between the pair when they arrived at Dulles International Airport after an event in Northern Virginia and Obama was not aboard the airplane. Asked at the time about the Illinois senator's whereabouts, [Obama spokesman Robert] Gibbs smiled and declined to comment.

george:

Folks here can insist that Bilderberg is little more than another gabfest for pundits and intellectuals. But they are invaribly the same people who insist that American foreign policy really is about spreading democracy around the world.

george walton

[danny/annie]

- iambiguous

August 5, 2009 at 11:24am

Walton:

But who can deny that, thus far, Obama the president is clearly at odds with Obama the candidate on the campaign trail.

boneill:

I can.  But that is only because I paid attention during the campaign.  

- boneill

August 5, 2009 at 11:46am

That liberal media.

- DC Spence

August 5, 2009 at 12:19pm

Two thoughts:

1. I don't know why you blame the Right for this - the "Obama broke his promises" mindset comes from the Left (see george's post, above).  Most conservatives think Obama promised socialism and weak foreign policy on the campaign trail and has delivered both in full measure.  And "this poor young couple is losing their house because the government didn't save them" doesn't really sound like a conservative theme, does it?

2. Whether Obama has failed the country is a matter of opinion, but whether or not he has broken his campaign promises is verifiable fact.  If the Post's story is wrong, call them on it to their faces.  Make a stink over it - maybe they'll clean up their editing.  Lord knows they'd do it to you.

- dhauck

August 5, 2009 at 12:43pm

I actually wrote the ombudsman to complain.  The story is absurd, utterly one-sided, and based on some whining from a real estate agent.  The Post is so desperate for revenue that it's turning into yet another Town Hall or Commentary or NRO.  Okay, perhaps that's hyperbole, but this article is highly suspect.

- shaw-man

August 5, 2009 at 1:21pm

WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits: * Prominent conservatives sure seem upset about President Clinton freeing Laura Ling and Euna Lee from North Korea. * Sen. Kit Bond (R) of Missouri, who is retiring next year, today became the

- Anonymous

August 5, 2009 at 5:28pm

boneill:

"I can. But that is only because I paid attention during the campaign."

gw:

Ah, so you're the one!! I guess the White House publicist has mistaken you for the other Boneill. You know, the one who is the liaison between Tim Geithner, Henry Paulson and Lloyd Craig Blankfein at Goldman Sachs.

Did you volunteer? I hear from some you do the work pro bono.

; o )

gw

- iambiguous

August 6, 2009 at 6:02am