The Daily Smear from the NYT: Obama too "vague" in his speech

[high density]

So as TV 'news' attacks Obama about promising too much, the NYT says he didn't promise Europe enough on various issues. In their "analysis," the NYT seems eager for Barack Obama to run a campaign that bows to Europe's demands.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25842161

For Senator Barack Obama, who came to Europe once in the last four years, making a stop in London on his way to Russia, the response of many Europeans to his potential presidency has been gratifying — emotional, responsive, replete with the sense of hope he seeks to engender about a more flexible, less ideological America.

European governments and politicians are not so sure.
...
Europeans are wary about Mr. Obama’s call for more European money for defense and more soldiers for the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. They worry that he will not alter what they see as President Bush’s unbending bias in favor of Israel.

And, despite what appears to be his sensitivity to European concerns, they perceive Mr. Obama as largely uninterested in Europe, even though he is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee responsible for the region. As the newspaper Le Monde pointed out on Thursday, Mr. Obama has never asked to meet the European Union’s ambassador in Washington.

Continued: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25842161

It gets even better, with whining about possible protectionism. The article also talks about other issues that Europe is currently unhappy about. I am not sure how these relate to Obama's trip.

[Triana]

1. Protectionism?

They make it more apparent every day that they pull their anti-Democrat(ic) smears and bullshit right out their asses.

I HATE the corprat-owned lamestream media! :mad:

[madaboutharry]

2. They don't know what to say.

I think the media is confused. When Obama announced he was running for the presidency in Springfield all those many months ago, he was supposed to have washed out in a matter of a few months. And here we are today. The media has lost control of the storyline. McCain, their god, has demonstrated that he is not a very bright old man with old tired ideas. Obama has defied them. The media can't handle this situation so they have started to fabricate reality.

[Youphemism]

3. It was the prefabbed response...

Just as when you go in the military you are asked "What size do you want your clothes -- too small, or too large?" so the response was ready even before the speech was delivered...

If he provided the specifics the author talks about, he would have been completely savaged for talking foreign policy on foreign soil. When he didn't, the whine would go out, "too vague."

[gaiilonfong]

4. NYT=Clinton central

they are still smarting from Hillary's loss, so they look for anything to crit Obama....they should be going after McSame but they are afraid of being called out....but of whimps led by log-cabin ReTHUGlican Nagourney!

[mwb970]

5. If he had been specific, they would have whined about that instead.

O doesn't go overseas and they bash him for it. Then he does go overseas and they bash him for that. This is the Republican way: heads I win, tails you lose.

Remember bush's tax cuts? When the economy was good, we needed tax cuts for the rich to use up the surplus. When the economy was bad, we needed tax cuts for the rich to stimulate it.

Remember bush's Iraq War? When the violence is up we can't leave because it would cause chaos. When the violence is down we can't leave because we are "winning" now.

So how surprising is it that O is criticized for everything about the trip they badgered him into taking? This is the way these jerks operate.

[Highway61]

6. Like we have had 8 years of what?

Bush expresses himself clearly and effectively? There is a man who has butchered words and sentences on a daily basis. Vague? Yeah...sure. If that is the best NYT can come up with about Obama...good luck with that.

[high density]

7. Good question

I don't know what more they were expecting. Obama already hit on so many issues in his speech.

[Thrill]

8. The German Government seemed very happy with the speech

"From the point of view of the chancellor and the government, the speech is a positive signal for Europe and to Europe," Merkel spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm told reporters. Obama "underlined the fact that the challenges of the 21st century can only be tackled together, only in international cooperation — that corresponds with the German government's position."

Wilhelm said the priorities Obama named matched those of Germany.

"A common resolution of international conflicts, a common fight against climate change, a clear initiative on the question of disarmament, dealing with the challenges of international terrorism — all these questions can no longer be resolved by one country alone, but only in close international cooperation that also involves international organization," Wilhelm said.

Still, the Democratic candidate's speech also pointed to possible trans-Atlantic tensions over missions in Afghanistan and elsewhere under the next U.S. president. Obama declared that "Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less" on security.

Germany has more than 3,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, mostly in the relatively peaceful north. Although it plans to increase its contingent and has taken over a quick reaction force in the north, it has repeatedly resisted pressure from its NATO partners to send troops to the volatile south.

"We have repeatedly made clear that ... we are doing what we can with the means we have," Wilhelm said. "I see no shortcomings as far as Germany's commitment is concerned."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_el_pr/obama_germany_44;_ylt=AhvhohFdwVaYTDACHQpWmdlh24cA

So where is this writer getting this Bullshit

[TexasObserver]

9. The New York Times has become a joke this election.

New York Times. Washington Times. What's the difference?!