Does anyone at the New York Times know it endorsed Hillary Clinton? Little Frank Rich sinks to new low, along with CBS and most others
March 31, 2008 – Lugano (apj.us) – Okay.
The New York Times editorial board, in its well thought out endorsement, told us that Hillary Clinton was the better Democrat candidate several months ago.
Since that time the Op-Ed writers for that very same newspaper have been on an almost non-stop battle to humiliate Senator Clinton in hurtful and unsubstantial ways while they leave Mr. Obama and his alleged ties to the underworld untouched.
While I support neither Obama nor Clinton nor McCain, I have been tracking the Times particularly because it is the wealthiest among American papers and most of its revenue comes for very big and very rich corporations who can afford to pay $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 a page for a single ad in the “Gray Lady,” who now must carry an Hermes bag stuffed with greenbacks and euros.
In just the past few weeks I was compelled to take on Frank Rich (“Frank Rich, Little Bitch”), David Brooks (“Bashing Hillary With Hacktacular Blog Sources!”) and, of course, non-Times Neonazi cheerleaders Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.
They are all the same breed.
While one would think that the Times might outdo the inane and credibility-free opinion followers such as Malkin and Coulter, the fact is that today I have to deal with Frank Rich again, and my much-loved Maureen Dowd tomorrow, for their inane join-up with the stars-in-your-eyes crowd that believes that Senator Obama is the Second Coming and Hillary Clinton is a lying hausfrau.
Believe me, neither of these two Times celebri-pundit writers has much on Ann Coulter when it comes to being part of the lunatic fringe.
I’ll start with the unprofessional theater critic bash-master Frank Rich, who has had to remake himself as a political commentator for some very good reasons. Mr. Rich must derive his opinions from FOX News or Bear Stearns (at least what remains of it). He writes today about what he calls “Hillary’s St. Patrick’s Day Massacre.”
Weasel that he is, Rich starts out his lambaste by explaining that most politicians and people over 50 “misremember” things. He moves right into calling Senator Clinton’s misstatements about her Bosnia trip “a fairy tale” – which is not very imaginative of him compared to other labels this mistake has garnered.
Rich then makes it clear that while he will give pols and people nearing 60 a pass – he won’t give such a go-by to Hillary Clinton because, he rationalizes, “she kept this whopper for nearly three months, well after it had been publicly debunked by journalists and eyewitnesses.”
I can tell you without doubt that Hillary Clinton may have confused this specific instance with other's like it or more apprehensive, but in fact, for more than 18 years since 1990, she has been living in mortal danger simply for being a president candidate’s and then President’s wife along with her daughter Chelsea who has endured the same. Whether bullets were flying in Bosnia at the specific moment the Clinton “gals” deplaned is not really the point at all. They just as well could have been.
Simply by existing, both women attract the vilest wannabee assassins and executioners. Maybe the small-minded Mr. Rich and writers like him should interview Mrs. Clinton about how it is to live like that – like a target – and how is might be possible to confuse one prospective attack on her with a thousand others?