Thursday, January 24, 2008

The New York Times endorses Hillary

Seems to me that they're coming out a bit early, considering we're still a week and a half out New York's Super Tuesday primary. But perhaps your blogstress's memory is a bit impaired.

Their argument for Clinton is her brilliance and policy experience; as for her bad vote on the war, the reasoning seems to be, "That was then, and this is now."

Obama gets written off rather lightly, with nods to his "gifts," but no appreciation of his brilliance.

The more legitimate critique of Obama is a sort of amorphous quality to his raison d'ĂȘtre. Still, to laud him for his "gifts" without applauding his intellect seems to fulfill the "magic Negro" narrative described by my colleague Kate Sheppard at TAPPED.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE NEW YORK TIMES'S ENDORSEMENT OF HILLARY CLINTON

Sphere: Related Content

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree, it seems very early for a newspaper to back a candidate. I realize this is on the "opinion" page, but what does this mean in terms of how balanced their reporting will be? I'm one of many who relies mostly on The Daily Show and the evening news for information on what's happening in the world. If it wasn't for your blog I would have no idea what The New York Times wrote.

For what it's worth, my parents read The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, are well educated, and they are behind Obama for these reasons:
(1) Mom - not another Clinton, we've got to stop this pattern of Reagan/Bush, Bush/Quayle, Clinton/Gore, Bush/Cheney, Clinton/?
- The morals of the Clintons are not so great.
- McCain is too old and might die.
- Huckabee is frightening.
- She never talks about the rest of them.
- I'm a democrat.
(2) Dad
- I can't stand Hillary Clinton. She would not have accomplished anything had she not married Bill.
- Obama wrote a really excellent book.
- He never talks about the rest of them, but he probably agrees with mom on McCain.
- I'm a democrat (but we do need a 2-party system).

Anonymous said...

Does The NY Times always use "Mrs." when writing about a married woman? It struck me as odd. I was taught in school to use "Ms." regardless of the marital status of a woman. It really bothered me when I was reading the article. It makes me think that The NY Times is not with the times and is not so relevant.

Adele said...

Anon #1--Thanks for the fun comment!

Anon #2--Regarding the use of the abbreviation "Mrs." by the New York Times. This, alas, is Mrs. Clinton's preference, after Bill was defeated after one term as Arkansas governor, partly because of, it was said, his wife's refusal to take her husband's last name. In those days, she was simply Ms. Hillary Rodham. Once she took his name, she also took the retro salutation.

Several months ago, I wrote a piece for The Guardian about the ironies of Hillary as feminist icon.