I commented earlier, here and here, on the reasonableness of certain recent articles and editorials in the WaPo. Looks like it’s a real trend, because today the editors have published an editorial on Obama’s campaign financing reversal that contains not a word with which I would disagree, including the following excerpt (well, maybe I’d eliminate the word “little”):
[Obama's] effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take…Politicians do what politicians need to do. But they ought to spare us the self-congratulatory back-patting while they’re doing it.
[ADDENDUM: And, although it's no surprise that David Brooks agrees that this was hardly Obama's finest hour, Brooks says it so well (except, what's up with "truck?"):
...Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.
And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding.]
[ADDENDUM II: And the only surprise about this is that it was the Boston Globe saying it. But that was long before Obama became The Anointed One.
And although today's Globe's editorial reaction is far more kind than that of Brooks or the Wapo---no surprise, again---even the Globe isn't tremendously pleased, writing that "[Obama's] decision deals a body blow both to the system of campaign finance and to his own reputation as a reform candidate.”
Of course, the Globe isn’t as upset as it would be if someone less wonderful were doing this—or, as the editors so objectively put it, “[Obama] has set a worrisome precedent. The techniques of Internet fund-raising that his aides have so effectively mastered could in a future election be used to assemble a mass donor base with a more self-interested agenda.”]