NYTimes is a Surrogate for the Obama Campaign

Original Link: http://wwsword.blogspot.com/2008/06/nytimes-is-surrogate-for-obama-campaign.html

The New York Times has published a al dog of an editorial.

They begin by framing Hillary Clinton's decision to continue the race, if she chooses to do so, as "denying reality." Yet the convention is not until August 25. They argue that Hillary needs to unify the party. But it isn't Hillary's reponsibility to unify the party. Those who engineered Obama's victory have that burden. (Don't think for a second that had the superdelegates done the right thing and nominated Clinton that there wouldn't be outrage and protest.)

The NYTimes notes that it endorsed Clinton. Good intentions fallacy. It was clear months ago that the editorial page was rooting for Obama. Just as the NYTimes did in pushing the false intelligence that Bush used to justify the war of aggression against Iraq, the NYTimes strived for weeks to diminish Clinton so that a weak candidate would win the nomination, almost guaranteeing that the Republicans will get what they want.

The NYTimes speaks for "many Americans" they can't possibly know by claiming that there are "nagging doubts about her character because the greater blame for the campaigns' negativity falls on Mrs. Clinton." This awkwardly written sentence contains a ridiculous assertion. The truth is that the Obama campaign blatantly used gender and race to smear the Clintons. It wasn't just the media that was over the top in its sexist attacks on this accomplished and professional woman; as I documented on this blog, the Obama campaign and Obama himself pounded Clinton with sexist attacks. The race card was played loudly and often against the Clintons, especially against Bill.

The NYT editorial board says that Clinton "has a chance now to allay those doubts." Why should Clinton allay doubts the NYTimes has manufactured? This is an attempt by the NYTimes to compel Clinton to humiliate herself. The desire to see this woman submit to the corporate elite is what lies behind the demand that Hillary concede now, more than two months away from the convention that may yet see her as the nominee of the Democratic Party (so much about Obama's associations and beliefs has yet to be shown to the public).

The NYTimes recognizes that Obama has "not amassed enough delegates through the primaries and caucuses." However, they describe the system as "flawed" and claim that the leaders fixed the problem. Another ridiculous argument. The flaws in the system are these: the undemocratic character of the caucus system, proportional representation that doesn't match the winner-take-all electoral system, and arbitrary rule making that contradicts the charter and, more broadly, reason and the principles of democracy. By casting their ballots for Clinton, the superdelegates can correct the distortion caused by the caucus system. If the states were winner take all, then Clinton would have passed the delegate threshold weeks ago. The rules committee stole votes from Clinton and gave votes to Obama that he did not win. That's not just flawed - it's wrong.

The automatic delegate system is certainly not the flawed aspect of the system; however, it is a serious error in judgment for superdelegates to throw their weight behind the unelectable candidate. It is the superdelegates' job to make sure the losing proposition is not the nominee and to pick the best candidate. They appear to be prepared to fail in carrying out their duty.