Clinton stands up for Raines - Resignation too severe, Sulzberger is told

New York Daily News ^ | 6/10/03 | PAUL D. COLFORD

[section9]

Sure, Clinton always stood up for his ideological soulmates. However, there is a reason he tried to save Howell's job. Raines was an unabashed Clinton supporter. His control over the vast propaganda apparatus that is the New York Times would have been of great assistance in three important matters: undermining the present crop of Democrats, getting Hillary reelected in 2006, and electing her President in 2008. Now, the Times is not quite in his pocket as it was before.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[bmwcyle]

Lies what's wrong with lies?

[Liz]

.....why would the Clintons want it known that they had made this failed entreaty?......

Clinton needs to show he's still in the game. He has to be careful to pick and choose his plays......he's received criticism for trying to oneup Bush. This issue was pretty much liberals kissing up to each other. Bush was not going to go there.

[Ed_in_NJ]

Excellent!

[TaxRelief]

The Clintons have their grubby paws into almost everything it seems. Thank God for the NY Post, FoxNews, Conservative bloggers, FR, etc.

Bill, The Godfather, speaks and the liberal media listens.

[aristeides]

This time, it would appear they did not listen.

[b4its2late]

Raines can run Clintons Harlem office. Does anyone know if that is still open, btw?

[smiley]

Isn't this pathetic?...Here we have the Clintons who are competing with each other for any recognition whether it's in front of a camera or in print....why can't these people just leave? No wonder Al Gore turned into stone with these two pathetic hams around.

[dsc]

Hey, scumbags of a slime wallow in the same grime.

If I had a nightmare that Beelzebubba was sticking up for me, I'd wake up screaming in a cold sweat.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Have fun, Raines. A Clinton endorsement is the kiss of death (literally in some cases).

[jriemer]

Sure, Clinton always stood up for his ideological soulmates. However, there is a reason he tried to save Howell's job. Raines was an unabashed Clinton supporter. His control over the vast propaganda apparatus that is the New York Times would have been of great assistance in three important matters: undermining the present crop of Democrats, getting Hillary reelected in 2006, and electing her President in 2008. Now, the Times is not quite in his pocket as it was before.

Alas with Howell out of the picture, who's now going to run the Ministry of Truth?

Having Howell being an intergral part of the NYTimes since 1993 (see his bio's still up) bio and the Clintoid flunkies in action during Bill's reign - you could make the case that Bill Clinton was evolving America into a Bananna Republic. He had amazing influence in the media at the Times and CNN which enabled his political fortunes and spackled over his faults. You can make a very strong case for his engaging in macro-economic manipulation, cronyism and kleptocracy as well as intimidiation of normal citizens due to an overall deign for the rule of law. All of this was made easier by having the full knowledge and consent of a willing press.

The Clinton administration was on a glide path for becoming a tin-horn Bananna Republic. That's one of the reasons why the 2000 election was so fiecely fought and leftists actually talked about a "coup" when President Bush actually won. They had already possessed a third-world mindset of politics...

Just a thought.

[VRWC_minion]

Now, the Times is not quite in his pocket as it was before.

But its a shot over the bow for the next in charge person or the reporters who remain. It gives Clinton implied power that he even has a relationship that allows him to call.

[VRWC_minion]

Ita always about Bill Clinton isn't it.

[bert]

CYA

day late, dollar short

[boomop1]

These a**holes can't stand to be rightly criticized, there is not enough space here for me to vent my distain for them, I'll let Mia T do it.

[Mia T]

The Times Reaps What It Sowed 2 _bump

 

The clintons never fail to avenge.

 

By distancing himself post-9/11 -- if only ever so slightly -- from clinton ineptitude, dysfunction and utter failure, Pinch Sulzberger committed a clinton-lackey no-no.

 

New York Times Chairman/Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. admits to Brian Lamb (11-30-01):

• "Times dropped ball during Holocaust by failing to connect the dots"
• Times was able to endorse clinton by separating clinton's "policies" from "the man" [i.e., by failing to connect the dots!]

[Howlin]

Jim Kennedy, spokesman for the former president, said he didn't expect to have any comment "regarding The New York Times issue" by late yesterday.

Then why are we reading about it in the papers? Just like Clinton to leak something he did and then "not comment" on it after it's out in the open.

[Political Junkie Too]

Clinton to Raines: "Then we'll just have to win this."

-PJ

[jimt]

"After all, I lied about rape, committed perjury and treason, and I didn't have to resign. Why should Raines?"

[Hotspur]

Though he and Raines are ideological soulmates, what's really going on here is that Slick is selfishly looking at his own place in history. Where lying is an issue in any public controversy, Slick is going to stick his bulbous nose in by way of trying to lessen the consequences. That's because anytime a person or institution lies and gets slapped on the wrist, it justifies for posterity Slick getting slapped on the wrist for his serial felonies. Conversely, anytime someone gets condign punishment for lying, Slick's slap on the wrist will look like the political whitewash it was.

Since Slick's motives are not ideological, look for him to weigh in on the side of a Republican in the future if a Repub. gets in hot water for mistruths, which would be a twofer, allowing the impeached one to claim a bogus "bipartisanship."