Replies

Several possibilities could be possible.

Maybe the Times wants to get the storm about such things over and to guide the narrative to other things, given that her potential base has about a microsecond of attention span.

My bewilderment is certainly not directed at you. Your attempt to make sense out of what seems an overwhelmingly impulsive, uncharacteristic rush for the Times to collaborate with the likes of Fox News in an adversarial pose against the Clintons in a move that would seem politically unnatural if not an act of self-sabotage is highly unusual, which leads me to my own conclusions.

1.The New York Times is way ahead on the curve being aware of a perfect political storm in which Hillary gets to capsize, self-destruct very early in the game becoming rudderless amidst the political jetsam and flotsam she turns into, ends up waking up one morning finding herself stranded on some isolated beach not merely because she doesn't have the political cojones to jump the political hurdle as not being politically viable (despite her gynecological pedigree if even that) but because, because, of what the Times may have been clued in on activity of an egregious, maybe even criminal nature.

2.All of this is merely conjecture, taken out of the air, so to speak. I have no idea if any of this has a modicum of truth. But the way the Times found itself gravitating to Fox like a bat out of hell, not the least of which is the anathema the Times has become to the Clintons as a result of the way they demonstrated a who are the Clintons apathy indicates (to me) they felt they had nothing to lose by this move.

“Maybe the Times wants to get the storm about such things over and to guide the narrative to other things, given that her potential base has about a microsecond of attention span.”

Clinton’s enemies have been working over time to smear this innocent helpless girl. ...and all that rot.