On the "New and Not Improved" NY Times Editorial About Barack Obama

"New and Not Improved" is the title of an editorial in the July 4^th New York Times about Barack Obama's recent "repositioning" or "moving to the center", or whatever. The editorial starts out with:

"Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush's abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.
Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings."

After listing all sorts of changes in Obama's positions, the editorial concludes with:

"We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama's shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.
There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don't want any 'redefining' on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in."

My response to the Times:

Why are you so surprised? Obama's campaign has been mainly about rhetoric and oratory. Don't tell me you were taken in by all this, just as you were by Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq. Today's New York Times is almost a parody of the old one. You have a public editor who complains about Maureen Dowd's treatment of Hillary Clinton as if she were a news reporter. Meanwhile, no one seems to complain when Gail Collins, another columnist, is somewhat lazy about getting her facts straight, something even a columnist should do. (I don't have time to go into this here.)
It's time for you to "get real". Politics isn't beanbag, as they say in Chicago.
My concern now about Barack Obama is that, having achieved the nomination, I'm not sure he really wants the job. My guess is that he would rather wax poetic than have to deal with all the grim realities of being president. At least he hasn't gone so far as to say "Don't cry for me Argentina", as George H. W. Bush once did. Now, there was a nominee who didn't really want the (second term of the) job. So we ended up with Bill Clinton. This time, I'm afraid, we won't be as fortunate if Obama loses to John McCain.
In the meantime, you should at least allow him some room to maneuver. The world is a scary place, and, not to be overly sarcastic, George W. Bush will indeed be a tough act to follow!

The Times is naïve if it thinks that Obama can "change" the ugly reality that Bush will leave behind. I believe Obama when he describes himself as "progressive". He has detailed knowledge and understanding on many subjects involving foreign and domestic policy, truly the un-Bush, and I hope he will be able to govern effectively if elected. As an aside, I think his best choice for Veep would be former senator and governor Bob Graham of Florida.