Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post has endorsed Barack Obama as the A.B.C. candidate — anybody but Clinton. Mind you they couldn’t find much merit to endorse Obama on, as they took a swipe at Hillary Clinton using those now famous, “let’s not go back to the past” talking points that team Obama and his surrogates have been bandying about for days. No they found little good to say about Obama, other than he’s not Clinton:
Democrats in 22 states across America go to the polls next Tuesday to pick between two presidential prospects: Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
We urge them to choose Obama – an untried candidate, to be sure, but preferable to the junior senator from New York. […]
Now, Obama is not without flaws.
For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning: Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive; America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.
His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. “Change!” for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make.[…]
Again, we don’t agree much with Obama on substantive issues.[…]
Big Tent Democrat pointed out that you won’t see this endorsement “written about in the Left blogs” and you can bet if it was an endorsement for Clintion from a Rupert Murdoch paper there would be plenty holding it “against Hillary.”
It’s ironic that the attacks on Hillary Clinton are all about the past, in my opinion. They can’t go after her platform, because it has been deemed that both have similar platforms.
So instead they engage in double-speak, calling her divisive and claiming a Hillary Clinton presidency will be a blast to the past, while claiming to be above the fray. It’s hogwash.
The fact is Hillary Clinton is stronger on the issues, more experienced and has a proven record of listening to voters. The Obama camp is grasping and the New York Post gave them a new straw today to suck on — one loaded with right wing talking points.