NYT Endorses Clinton, Approves ultimate defeat of Democrats

Earlier yesterday Gashwin and I were listening to National Public Radio. Gashwin, who if he had his 'papers' would probably be a libertarian, took note that the tonality of all the announcers and commentators when talking about Obama and Clinton. And by tonality I mean that they seem to come across as pro-Obama and anti-Clinton. It is somewhat suprising, but after closer examination - it makes sense.

Conversely, something not surprising - but in reality should be surprising, the NYT has endorsed Hillary Clinton. To say I'm disappointed is an understatement. It appears that the editorial board simply glossed over the record of Mr. Obama and decided to look no further than their state line in throwing their support behind the reverse carpet bagger. What a glib endorsement. What's even more shocking is that the bastion of liberal media pardons and excuses the misbehaviour of the Clintons, only 'encouraging' her to change the tone of rhetoric on the campaign trail. The Times says of her:

"Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.... Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues [as health care], but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now."

My only response is what experience? She keeps saying 35 years of experience. The fact is that everyone has been inundated with that phrase without any truth to back it up. If you look at it, Mr. Obama has more time spent as an elected official working on legislation than either Hillary or John Edwards. Why did the NY Times fail to mention that? Why did they fail to take that into account? And should tenure as First Lady account for experience on the résumé? Why should we even consider it when her husband refuses to unseal the documents that would even show us what she did as a first lady.

This endorsement seems rather reckless and hasty. Let's not forget that Republicans want Hillary to win, they're biting at the teeth to face her and lay her low. For months people aspiring to be the next Carl Rove and Lee Atwater have been stalking in the back ground. Why is the NYT so blithe to forget that? As Michael Gerson of the Washington Post says:

"...there are three words that cause nearly every Republican to forget their differences and join hands in common purpose: President Hillary Clinton."

Mr. Gerson goes on to say that there are three very strong, very true, very wise reasons as to why Mrs. Clinton serves only to bring ruin to the Democratic Party in her efforts to regain the throne. According to Mr. Gerson:

First, she is a living symbol of the culture wars of the 1990s and will rally the Republican base like no other candidate.
It is always easier to remind voters than to instruct them. And it won't take much reminding for Republicans when it comes to Clinton and her high-profile husband. Just a few words and phrases are necessary to evoke an entire era: "I didn't inhale." Kathleen Willey. Whitewater. "Two for the price of one." Polling to select vacation sites. Baking cookies. Joycelyn Elders. Hillarycare. "What the meaning of the word 'is' is." Blue dress. "That woman." Lewinsky, as noun and verb.
For many conservatives -- social, economic and otherwise -- that list is the trumpet call to old battles. Clinton may feel victimized by the "vast right-wing conspiracy" -- but she also recruits it, feeds it and sends it to war.
Second, Clinton is the candidate who most muddles the Democratic message of change.
This will undoubtedly be a change election -- about 77 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, the highest number since the 1995-96 shutdown of the federal government. But unlike many past presidential contests, no Republican incumbent or vice president will appear on the ticket. All the Republican candidates are able to run as fresh faces.
It is Clinton who carries the heaviest burden of the past -- who must defend her years of service as a golden era. She is the most backward-looking candidate of either party -- the closest there is to an incumbent in the 2008 election. This could allow a smart Republican to wear at least a portion of the mantle of change.
Third, the Clintons practice a form of politics without honor. Already Clinton's proxies have attacked Obama as a drug user and maybe a drug dealer, and bemoaned politicians who "shuck and jive." These are code words one would expect to overhear from George Wallace at a cocktail party with Lester Maddox. Robo-calls in Nevada made reference to "Barack Hussein Obama." Clinton accuses Obama of defending a slumlord -- and even, God forbid, of defending Ronald Reagan.
Given the Clintons' cultivation of ruthlessness as a political art, none of this is surprising. Obama is the soaring candidate -- the candidate of idealism and aspiration. Clinton's only hope is to bring him down to earth, then bury him in flying dirt. Clinton prefers a war of attrition -- blow for bloody blow -- because her team is better at the tactics of politics. Unable to inspire, Clinton chooses to destroy. *
This may work in the primaries since many Democrats seem to prefer a fighter to a lover. But I suspect these tactics will eventually backfire. African American Democrats cannot be pleased to see Obama cut and bleeding from a thousand distorted attacks. And while Clinton is clearly the best partisan in the race, the country does not seem to be in a partisan mood.
A presidential election between, say, McCain and Obama -- both positive and honorable candidates -- would be better for the country. A race between McCain and Clinton would be better for the Republicans.
(emphasis added)

So Shame on the New York Times for being so glib and hasty in making their endorsement, shame on them for allowing themselves whether knowingly or unknowingly to be a proxy of the Clinton Machine. Shame on the NYT to look no further than the state-line in even considering their democratic candidate. What credibility they had to make educated, well thought out editorial consensus decisions is now lost to this reader.

*As a side note to those Clintonian Tactics, it's interesting that HRC is doing the same thing in SC that she did in NH - seemingly pulling out as a loss when only a couple of months ago she had a suprising lead over Mr. Obama. Is she planning on 'resurging' in SC and calling it another "comeback?" What a shrewd and dirty thing to do.

Sphere: Related Content