23
Apr
08

The New York Times can’t be that naïve: Claiming Clinton isn’t engaging Obama on the issues is a joke.

Obama is not above the fray

Aside from the fact that the New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton and are now attacking her, the editors there have a lot of nerve saying:

“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.”

How can you engage someone on the issues when they speak in platitudes and are fawned over by the media?  And what would a debate on the issues between the two of them look like?  “I’m most socialist than you are!”  “No, I’m more socialist!”  Give us a break!

Seems the Times has jumped into the Obama bag right next to MSNBC, that’s the only way to describe a 10 point victory, one that would be a blow-out in any rational world, as “inconclusive.” 

The harshest words for Obama?  That he takes Clinton’s bait sometimes:

“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.”

In other words, “Don’t stoop to the level of the person we said would be better than you as President, Senator Obama.”  What a joke!

And to claim this campaign is anything close to the nastiest ever shows an ignorance of history not worthy of discussion.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “The New York Times can’t be that naïve: Claiming Clinton isn’t engaging Obama on the issues is a joke.”


  1. April 23, 2008 at 10:53 pm

    Is this a great country or what? That the NYT’s and First Friday can offer up the same drivel. I love this country. On a serious note, Obama has made strides in “better politics”, however, Clinton’s persistence is nothing more than “stop pulling my hair, John and I are more qualified”. Pj and I agreed, much of this crap has been bought and paid for. Republican voters are dying for a Clinton campaign, are unhappy with McCain, and Obama has campaigned quite a bit differently. McCain has too, except for gaffes of promoting free trade in Ohio, or telling Detroiters “your jobs aren’t coming back”. The Obama “bandwagon” can be spun by conservatives and Clintons, but the hope flavor of Kool-Aid is quite tasty. The last 8 years have been devastating to your party, no matter how much you deny it, the calculation of the Clinton’s is embarrassing, as it is shameful. When do smart voters say enough? When do we ask that candidates run for the people and country, and not their own gain? I know somewhere deep inside you know where I am comin’ from. Take care.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: