Slog - Comments on The New York Times Endorses...

Comment by Obvious Guy

Obvious Guy — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:32:41 -0800

The New York times is considered the most unobjective news rag in the country.

Why wouldn't they endorse the senator from their very own state?

Comment by blaire with an e

blaire with an e — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:35:00 -0800

They just endorsed the hometown girl. On the other hand, they slam Guiliani in their endorsement of McCain.

Comment by flamingbanjo

flamingbanjo — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:41:17 -0800

Waitasecond -- the NYT opposed the invasion? Or have they confused "opposed" with "uncritically printed every bullshit story floated by the admistration and its proxies to justfy the invasion as though it were indisputable fact?"

Comment by SlogWorthy

SlogWorthy — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:51:03 -0800

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the New York Times just a liberal rag run by terrorist loving humersexuals?
And doesn't Hillary Clinton have a vagina? That's right, everyone is affraid to say it, but I was watching some video of her and I am sure she has a vagina.
We are a young country, but we have always been right about one thing, Vaginas do not belong in the white house.

Comment by Colton

Colton — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:59:11 -0800

What we really need to do in Iraq is install a brutal dictator that will frighten the Shiite and Sunni into cooperating with each other.

Oh wait, never mind.

Comment by unPC

unPC — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:06:45 -0800

On returning to Iraq as part of an international force to stop genocide--

is the point that Obama and Clinton disagree on that?

We read that OBama supports it. Did Clinton say "no, I wouldn't favor that"?

Or is it that Obama showed better judgment by raising it first?

If the latter, this is pretty minor as a distinction. What would be nice would be if either one would actually develop the plan for such an international force before waiting on genocide.

Personally, I'd rather see an international force led by Turkey, Morroco, Indonesia and Pakistan and the like (need to correct that to get the right Sunni Shia balance btw).

Having the USA in it inevitably makes it look like we are leading it. Big Problem.

They don't like us infidels over there. They really don't. Might be a bad idea to have any of us infidels involved. It's a stimulus program for Al Q.

(Cue: those who **favor** awarding bulls ownership of china shops.)

Comment by Mr Me

Mr Me — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:23:30 -0800

If those are the nominees, it'll be President McCain, so it doesn't really matter what Hillary's plan is. Also: people (like ECB) act like some tiny healthcare policy nuance is more important than character and vision. The president doesn't just get to sit down and say, "Here's healthcare policy, America." Any policy has to be vetted and watered down in congress. This is why the ability to reunite the country is more important than wonky-wonk policy details. It doesn't matter what the details are if you can't work with enough people to implement them. Hillary has too many enemies. But she'd have to win the general election first, which isn't gonna happen anyways.

I will say this about Obama, though: He's utterly failed to make Clinton's pro-war vote an issue. I realize he's trying to be noble, run a high-minded campaign, blah, blah, blah, but the pro-war vote is Clinton's biggest weakness with the democratic base. Wouldn't he rather be talking about that vote than having petty spats in the media about the Clintons' cryptoracist comments?

Comment by keshmeshi

keshmeshi — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:44:46 -0800

@7,

Yeah, especially when she keeps reaming him on petty shit like his "present" votes in the Illinois Senate. As a Senator, she should know better. Obama could pull the exact same shit on her.

Comment by Johnny Rigor

Johnny Rigor — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:56:35 -0800

Agreed @7-8.
Also the Wal-Mart board. The photos of Hills with that bunch of fat white men are priceless.

Comment by Fifty-Two-Eighty

Fifty-Two-Eighty — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:48:58 -0800

I have recently acquired a huge dose of realism about all this. I don't know if I'll show up for the caucus here on Feb. 5 or not. If I do, I'll stand in Hillary's corner. But it doesn't really matter much - it's non-binding. The situation with the general election is even worse. In the 33 years I've lived here, Colorado has NEVER gone for a Democrat for President. I might as well vote for Mickey Mouse for all the difference it will make. Nevertheless, you folks enjoy your bickering - it's more entertaining than anything on the boob tube.

Comment by RonK, Seattle

RonK, Seattle — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:06:06 -0800

McCain, McBain, whatever.

Comment by Wow!

Wow! — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:40:36 -0800

@1 "The New York times is considered the most unobjective news rag in the country."

REALLY? Congrats to the NYT for finally beating out The Stranger!

Comment by DOUG.

DOUG. — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:04:13 -0800

"Big Media Loves Hillary." Film at 11.

Comment by Obama SuperFan

Obama SuperFan — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:11:57 -0800

Obama will re-establish Hammurabi's code uniting greater Mesopotamia in a new Babylonian Empire.

Comment by Shawn Fassett

Shawn Fassett — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:52:47 -0800

Did I miss something?
Didn't Judith Miller & Michael Gordon work for the NY Times?
I really shouldn't sniff poppers when I read the 'paper of record'

Comment by Seamus

Seamus — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:03:29 -0800

I'd feel better about this if Hillary would tell Bill to shut the fuck up. And tell Bill that Obama isn't Newt Gingrich, it's important not to divide the party, because if you do, you won't be able to govern even if you win.

But she won't do that because to the Clintons, Obama is Newt Gingrich: someone in their way. Anyone in their way is the enemy.

She might win. She won't be able to govern.

Comment by Judith

Judith — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:59:43 -0800

the reason obama doesn't bring up hillary!'s 2003 pro-war positions is because since becoming a member of the u.s. senate himself, he's voted exactly like her on iraq. they'd just bring up (like they have before) that his words and actions don't mesh. i understand it's not that simple; that ridiculous amendments and attachments were added by the Republicans, forcing him to vote a certain way, and that he voted for additional funding so the troops were at least minimally supplied, etc.

i'm a huge obama fan, but i see this as one of his biggest challenges against her.

i agree with 7 -- if mccain's the gop nominee, she'll lose. she inspires a dangerous combo -- unenthusiastic dems/independents not voting/voting for mccain + huge anti-Hillary GOP turn-out to vote against her (like us in 2004 -- we voted against Bush, not for Kerry). and the GOP is desperate for something to get frothy about. hillary will be that something if we're so dumb as to nominate her.

Comment by fawxer

fawxer — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:08:06 -0800

@3. Totes! Unless I'm way off, the NYT SUPPORTED the invasion (like basically every other uncritical paper), then in about 2005 retracted their support for it in an editorial. Am I way off here?

Comment by blank12357

blank12357 — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:57:03 -0800

There will be no mass bloodshed in Iraq if the US pulls out troops as Obama suggests. There'll probably be fighting, but it will be no worse than what we've already seen and it will settle down quickly.

The reason the US hasn't done that is that the results are not likely to be pro-US. This is our big problem in Iraq - the only solution we can accept is one that suits us, but that ain't nevva gunna happen.

Pulling out then having second thoughts and sending them back in would be a disaster, simply aggravating the situation. I hope Obama's not seriously holding this as a trump card, as its a stupid idea.

Comment by Medina

Medina — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:24:23 -0800

@10 - Clinton won Colorado in 1992.