new york times rethinking that clinton endorsement


Another despicable anti-democratic piece by Adam Nagourney of the New York Times.

“For weeks, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had approached this race the same way: as state-by-state trench warfare, in the belief that the nomination would go to whoever got the most delegates.

But the results in the past week suggest that the race might be tilting back to a more normal form, where the goal is achieving a series of splashing victories and thus momentum.”

Momentum is the deciding factor?

This is just an overtly out there but telling example of the main stream media telling you what THEY think of the democratic process of voting in elections. All that voting stuff is secondary. It’s really about MOMENTUM. And who decides what momentum is but the MSM? Obama had momentum after the Iowa Caucuses. This newspaper said so. The Times may have endorsed Hillary Clinton, but it has nonetheless printed an endless series of pieces just like this one.

Newspapers like the New York Times MAKE public opinion. They have the power to manufacture it out of thin air. And that’s a real big part of what has happened in this election. Patrick Healy and Adam Nagourney have so thoroughly erased the Times’ endorsement of Clinton they should be on the Obama payroll.


Mrs. Clinton’s advisers dispute that, noting that his victories have come in relatively small states and that she has invested most of her attention in two big contests coming up on March 4: Ohio and Texas. Her aides have long argued that by the end of the voting, the difference between the two candidates in delegate count would be minimal, leaving the final decision to superdelegates, who in their view would favor Mrs. Clinton.

For one thing, if this is an election where a candidate wins by virtue of being seen as winning — a definition of momentum — that would mean that voters in coming states would be influenced by the outcome of earlier races. And Mr. Obama might then be in a position to encroach on Mrs. Clinton’s firewall of Texas and Ohio.”

Is he changing the definition of what a win is here or what? I know the Times endorsed Clinton. But I’m not sure at this point whether or not the Times endorses free democratic elections. We still have what is pretty much a dead heat and they’re trying their best to make the case that Obama has made a case for this to be wrapped up before Pennsylvania or Ohio votes. This reporter is shifting, or aiding the shift from delegate count totals, to momentum as the determining factor in the outcome of this primary. What a SCARY country this is.

And I wonder if Obama, who said today how much he wants the outcome to be decided by the people, will explain his desire to wrap the election up before so many Americans, in some very large and populous states have voted, based on how a bunch of LESS populous states have voted?

Can anything else happen to piss all over the other half of the Democratic party?


No Responses Yet to “new york times rethinking that clinton endorsement”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: