Where exactly does that put Obama on the political spectrum. Not where I long to be on a cold dark night. In the midst of their editorial today criticizing Obama's stimulus package and particularly the new tax cut he is opportunistically embracing (at the cost of ...well...optimal stimulus), the Times addresses how this repulsive move by Obama reinforces Republican framing and rhetoric, with long term negative effects to our political discourse:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11sun1.html?_r=1

"It also perpetuates the corrosive debate in which taxes are portrayed as basically evil and tax cuts as unmitigated good. That is not a debate that Mr. Obama should engage.

When the economy recovers, the nation will face a far more difficult task than deciding how to spend its way out of a slump. As a nation, we will have to right the country's severe long-term budget imbalance. That will require reforming health care and cutting spending, and -- yes -- tax increases.

Mr. Obama will need to lead that fight too. Planting the idea that tax cuts are not an overarching solution to serious problems is a good place to start."

Just how disappointing is the Obama transition so far?  I certainly expected to be quickly disenchanted. I am speechless that at the very start, Obama has moved to the right of NYT.

Over the last few months, I have attacked Obama's policy decisions on the stimulus and many of his appointees repeatedly. So far I think that criticism is richly deserved. But his reiteration today that engagement must be our starting policy with regards to Iran policy is really welcome, just as his willingness to talk to Hamas, and his reiterated commitment to closing Guantanamo (hopefully he is not just putting it on a slow track). These are glimmers of some positive significant change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12iran.html?hp