Turns out, according to the incomparable James Taranto, not only did the Times change its position to fit Obama's needs, it was actually against the filibuster before it was for it before it was against it. Turns out?
Yet amid its zigging and zagging, the Times has been consistent, in that its view on the filibuster has always been in line with the immediate interests of the Democratic Party.The New York Times is against the filibuster if a Democrat is being stymied but in favor of it if a Republican's (nefarious!) intentions are blocked.
Now that's conviction!