First The New York Times splashes a big headline about how liberal Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been during their time in the Senate.
Now The Washington Post, another liberal icon, runs a story headlined, "In Obama's New Message, Some Foes See Old Liberalism"
From the article by Alec MacGillis:
The double-barreled attack has presented Democratic voters with some persistent questions about Obama: Just how liberal is he? And even if he truly is a new kind of candidate, can he avoid being pigeonholed with an old label under sustained assault?Are the Times and the Post trying to swing the election to the Republicans?
Despite being rated the most liberal senator in 2007 by the National Journal, Obama has sought to confound easy categorization. While his record and platform mostly adhere to a left-leaning Democratic model, he has cast them as a common-sense response to the Bush administration. His ability to appeal to independents and even Republicans has been one of his main attractions for Democrats eager to retake the White House, and a cause for concern among some GOP leaders.
You don't want voters to know that the Democratic Party is about to nominate another liberal for president. Just look at the fate of these famous Democratic Party liberals: John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey. All liberal, all losers.
See my earlier post, "NY Times ruins it for Democrats"