I am not quite sure what to make of this. It just strikes me is quite odd that the New York Times, who once endorsed Hillary Clinton, would turn right around and scold her.
After all, on January 25, 2008, the New York Times said this:
This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.
The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.
As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.
But now this same board of editors, because Hillary Clinton did not play by their expected narrative, they publish this:
The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.
Is there any clearer proof of bias at The New York Times? At the very least, it shows that the New York Times wants Hillary to follow a pre-written narrative. How childish can a newspaper be! The very idea, that a major newspaper would publish an endorsement and then, because that said candidate does not jump through said hoops that the Newspaper wishes her to, that paper puts out a Editorial blasting her.
I can clearly see now why the Conservatives as a whole are rejecting the New York Times as some Liberal rag, which does not have the Journalistic integrity that it once did. The shoddy work on the John McCain story was living proof of that this just confirms it totally.
Others on this:Washington Wire, protein wisdom, Swampland, Balloon Juice, Hot Air, MSNBC, Real Clear Politics, Buck Naked Politics, Guardian Unlimited, The American Conservative, CANNONFIRE, Salon, Comedy Central, The Huffington Post, Top of the Ticket, No More Mister Nice Blog, The Strata-Sphere, American Street, Connecting.the.Dots, TalkLeft, TPMCafe, Marc Ambinder, Hotline On Call, Daily Kos, Commentary, Philly.com and The Mahablog
Exactly what “narrative” do you think the New York Times wanted her to follow?
Well, you missed the point. They endorsed her, figured she would lose. So, they wouldn’t be blamed for endorsing the inevitable. They didn’t want her attacking Obama. But she did, and she won and now they’re bitching about it. Which doesn’t make any sense considering they endorsed her in January.