Bush was already pledging to draw down troops before the election. Those plans were on the drawing board well over a year before the election. And quite public.

It does indeed appear that the Obama administration will do nothing substantially different from the Bush administration. Which is absolutely fine by me. It makes me a tad cynical, but since the results are what’s right then I have to applaud it.

A great lesson in this, to me, is that rhetoric aside the country’s foreign policy really is remarkably stable over the decades, no matter who’s in office. Major changes are rather rare, and Obama won’t be a major change on anything but style. (And, I grant, style is not irrelevant.)

People voted for hope and are now finding out that hope is intangible.

Americans who bought this also bought is "tax cut" plan, but you will see that wither just as Clinton’s promised middle-class cut evaporated after he was elected.  And if you’re going to tell me that economic conditions have changed, then I’ll tell you that Obama failed miserably to foresee the problems created when previous liberal administrations mandated that home loans be given to people who couldn’t afford them -  stupid policy from a party that panders to the masses to get elected, then screws them and everyone else over in the long term while they sit cushy in incumbency. 

The fact is, like Clinton, he sold voters one thing and he will deliver something else.  I knew that would happen, but I guess the electorate has to be reminded every 10 or so years that Democrats are at least as crooked as Republicans.  At least Bush tried to accomplish the things he promised.  Obama hasn’t even taken office and he’s already been exposed as another "lie to get elected" Dem.

Then Taranto decides to get in a swipe at the NYT by bringing up their endorsement article from October, which he thinks(?) makes his point that the NYT was out there peddling the line that Obama was going to bring every last solitary troop home by 2011.  But the plain text of the quote he pulls specifically mentions only a drawdown, and a beginning to pulling troops out.  Neither of which make a very convincing case that the NYT was expecting a swift and total exodus.

I might be more inclined to give Taranto some slack if I didn’t feel like he was snickering into his sleeve at how clever he is while simultaneously either making bad leaps in logic or displaying some poor reading comprehension.