- "inconclusive"? Do they believe in votes anymore? A 10% margin is "inconclusive"? I assume there is only one answer that they will call "conclusive"-Obama wins, but can they state their bias any more blatantly?
- Hillary is the candidate that they endorsed!! THEY picked her, not "Karl Rove". She is the Senator from NEW YORK, which they endorsed for that position as well. She and Bill used far worse tactics against Republicans for 8+ years, and the NYT stood and applauded!!
- "Right from Karl Rove's playbook". Is Rove actually Lucifer? Let's see, did John Kerry ever talk about "Osama Bin Ladin is still at large"? Have we really arrived at the point that NOBODY, not even another Democrat can point out FACTS if they don't cast the MSMs current favorite in the best possible light?
- "after 7 years of George Bush's failed with us or against us presidency". Ok, we know the position of the NYT, but that is old news. To them, every Republican President is a failure--before they even take the oath. We may or may not be in a recession--Clinton's presidency ended in a recession, was he a failure? He also had a stock market crash in March of 2K, so I guess his presidency was a BIG failure. In fact, 9-11 happened 8 months after he left office and he failed to nab Bin Ladin--oh, but he was a Democrat, so I guess he had a "successful presidency" ... at least if you are the NYT.
- So the NYT and rest of the MSM believes that whomever their "anointed one" is deserves nothing but "positive dialog on the issues"? Meanwhile, questions of 30 year old guard records, DWIs, spelling of words, "a smirk", "leaks", etc, etc are all completely legitimate to be used against a Republican? No double standards there!!
- I would assume that about 50% of the Dems and hopefully even more can see the blatant bias of the media now. Maybe even some of the BO supporters can be a LITTLE open minded since it is "good old Hillary" that is being beaten up now -- one of their own WONDERFUL Clintons! The very flower of humanity--why if it wasn't for how much MORE lovely BO is, and how much more he has promised their greedy little hearts, they would be in a swoon over how great SHE was!!!
The Low Road to Victory (New York Times)
The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, morre vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.
On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.
If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: “We would be able to totally obliterate them.”
By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton’s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about “bitter” voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.
No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think, it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and they are doing their best to make voters forget it. And if they think that only Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they’re wrong.
After seven years of George W. Bush’s failed with-us-or-against-us presidency, all American voters deserve to hear a nuanced debate — right now and through the general campaign — about how each candidate will combat terrorism, protect civil liberties, address the housing crisis and end the war in Iraq.
It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.
No comments:
Post a Comment