IS THE NEW YORK TIMES READY TO THROW HILLARY UNDER THE BUS?

1 December 2007 | vanity

[shrinkermd]

Both Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd have columns today.

Rich has little to say about the Iraq War. He stresses Obama opposed it and Hillary did not. Presumably, this is enough for Frank Rich and Pinch to switch sides.

Here is a quote from Rich:

”…But much like the Clinton campaign itself, the Republicans have fallen into a trap by continuing to cling to the Hillary-is-inevitable trope. They have not allowed themselves to think the unthinkable — that they might need a Plan B to go up against a candidate who is not she. It’s far from clear that they would remotely know how to construct a Plan B to counter Mr. Obama. The repeated attempts to fan “rumors” that he is a madrassa-indoctrinated Muslim — whether on Fox News or in The Washington Post, where they resurfaced scurrilously on the front page on Thursday — are too demonstrably false to survive endless reruns even in the Swift-boating era…”

Rich’s article is Who’s Afraid of Barack Obama?

Maureen has a softer and more balanced approach but here is a choice quote of hers:

…Except for panicked Clintonistas, everyone seems eager to see if the young pol can live up to his potential. Responding to his more combative style, the press has relaunched him, giving him a second chance to shine, on this week’s cover of Time, in the pages of The New Yorker, in the up arrow of Newsweek, which now declares him “poised to be the comeback kid,” and at The Times, where young female assistants lined the halls on Wednesday to watch him glide into a second meeting with editorial board writers and editors…

Maureen’s article is O Brother, Where Art Thou?

This is a dramatic change on the part of the NYT. Even if it is brief, they seem to be acquiescing to the idea the Iraq War is going well and progress is being made. Seemingly, now they and others in the dominant media see it is time to think of someone other than Hillary..

For us it makes little difference who their candidate is. What is more and more important is new and novel leadership from our candidates with an ever increasing stress on what can be done not what has been done.

It is also time for our presidential candidates to cease the ad hominems and cheap shots at their opponents. Further, many and perhaps most voters in 2008 will have been born after 1980. This means the Cold War, Viet Nam and JFK are historical not personal remembrances. What is more and more important is we need new and novel leadership from our candidates. The election is about the future--what can be done not outweighs what has been done . This group of younger voters needs and deserves a positive, forward looking approach. Failure to grasp this will result in our failure.

[Candor7]

Yeah Joe, she has a face that only a mother could love, on payday.

[The Ghost of Rudy McRomney]

In fairness, here's Maureen. (yes, I would)

[The Ghost of Rudy McRomney]

[ModelBreaker]

Interesting post. We seem to be just muddling along in the same direction, dems and pubs. Maybe that is the way things are going to go until another Reagan comes along.

Probably true. But, in 1980, it took 13% inflation, 10% unemployment, and humiliation overseas for the American public to wake up to the fact that muddling along with the left didn't work. Would rather we didn't get that far down again.

[SatinDoll]

I do now. I’ve been told about it, oh! A dozen times or more! LOL!!

[SatinDoll]

“We look forward to articles by Maureen. The reward makes it worthwhile.”

OBVIOUSLY! Enough already!!!