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.