The main campaign story at New York Times right now is about Al Gore possibly playing the “honest broker” for a peaceful resolution to what could be a battle royale between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over the Democratic presidential nomination.
But how honest is the New York Times?
First, the Gore-y part:
Democratic Party officials said that in the past week Mr. Gore and other leading Democrats had held private talks as worry mounted that the close race between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton could be decided by a group of 796 party insiders known as superdelegates.
But the caption to the picture accompanying the story reads as follows:
Senator Barack Obama, center, is now supported by Representative John Lewis, right, a superdelegate, seen with him last year.
And in the text of the story itself, there is this:
Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are aggressively lobbying the superdelegates, a battle that received new attention after Representative John Lewis of Georgia, who had endorsed Mrs. Clinton, said late Thursday that he would cast his superdelegate ballot for Mr. Obama if the battle for the nomination went to the convention.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports a different story:
Lewis’ spokeswoman would only say that the New York Times report that Lewis would back Obama was “inaccurate,” but provided no details and did not respond to requests for more. Jeff Zeleny, the Times reporter who interviewed Lewis on Thursday, later told CNN that Lewis “unequivocally” said he would support Obama.
It is one thing for the New York Times to stand by its reporting. It is quite another thing for the paper to ignore the dispute over its reporting.
It’s like God the Father stepping in because Jesus stole the Holy Ghost’s girlfriend.
It’s better than a re-run of Roseanne. I love it!
One wonders what sort of game Lewis may be playing. What exactly is he angling for? Unless, of course, he’s just being disengenuios and stepped into the pile.
All of this talk about super delegates and brokered conventions cannot be making the muckety-mucks at the DNC very happy.
As I’ve said before, the problem isn’t that the NYT is biased. It’s that the NYT is useless, except to pat its intended audience on the back and reassure them.
But don’t be too sure, bj. (What, no capitals?) People who vote in primaries tend to be at least somewhat interested in politics. In the national election, a lot of people are going to show up, look at the list, and say, “Hmm. Who’s this? — Oh, I’ve heard of this guy [kachunk]” If the foofaraw generates more name recognition, so much the better.
Regards,
Ric
Even my liberal ex-journalist friend calls the grey lady “senile.”
I don’t think I can remember a primary campaign that was more about form than substance (and that’s saying something.) The Sullivan treatise about conservatives not paying attention to Obama’s past speaches on policy (substance) completely ignores the totally anti-conservative bent of Obama’s stated policy goals. The lingering fear is that enough people will be dazzled by the changelicious changiness that they’ll vote for the most liberal candidate to run for president since Dukakis (and at least he balanced a budget during a fiscal crisis.)
I wonder how the NYT will continue to spin the whole super delegate kerfuffle? Will their readers be content with a candidate ultimately picked by party insiders? Combine that scenario with Bonds race baiting (COUNT EVERY VOTE!!) and Sharpton’s likely loud rejoiner and one is left with a potential free for all that will be entertaining for the likes of you and me but rather discomforting for Dems.
Ther lack of capitals reflects my short term ego crisis.
One of these days I would love to hear Sullivan explain how is new and improved definition of a “true” conservative differs from the progressive/liberal construct.
I know, I know, if taxes were chocolates and pigs farted classical music…
the picture
What’s with the straitjackets?
Oh, that’s right, they’re Democrats.
One wonders what sort of game Lewis may be playing.
Anything harder than tic tac toe, and Lewis will be wondering what he is playing, too. Lewis went with Hillary went she looked like a lock, now that the Black man has a real shot he is going with the race politics that he built his career on. John Lewis is not a complicated man.
The media wanted a race and for all the energy to be on the Dem side so it was all about how all the Dems are so good people are having trouble choosing so they had trouble and now it’s up to Al. The coverage was deeply unserious and now their race will be decided by a joke.
Egad! I can get into the sit again!
“It is one thing for the New York Times to stand by its reporting. It is quite another thing for the paper to ignore the dispute over its reporting.”
It’s the NYT’s way to engage currently-fashionable Obamamania while avoiding pissing off her highness.
“People who vote in primaries tend to be at least somewhat interested in politics.”
And they tend to be the more intense members of their parties, or, like I have been in the past, crossover voters just stirring the pot…
leadership
You liberals are not smart enough to pick the right candidate. That’s not a conservative saying that, it’s your own leaders. Hence the superdelegates. You can vote in all the primaries you want, but you don’t get to decide. A select few will get together and decide who the nominee is. And yet you liberal lemmings blindly follow your leaders and rant about “making every vote count”. You people aren’t even smart enough to figure out that your own vote doesn’t count.
How does one write “delivered to wrong address” on a blog comment?
Does anybody have any hard data as to what Gore’s real influence is as a kingmaker? I understand that he has the legion of gorons deperately trying to put an economic cold compress on the feverish planet but how do the numbers translate into covention busting? While the candidates continue to pick at the AGW narrative, the major issues consistantly talked about in this campaign haven’t raised that particular spectre above Iraq, the economy and health care.
Perhaps those that are talking to his Goreness are goring an ox that can’t pull the wagon. I’m not convinced of this but the lack of loudness concerning environmental issues would seem to indicate a perception of kingmaking rather than a reality, Nobel Prize or not.
“Does anybody have any hard data as to what Gore’s real influence is as a kingmaker?”
Hard data? Don’t progressives imagine their desired world and then require media and academia to conform to it?
You liberals are not smart enough to pick the right candidate
Or our own nose, even.
Giving Gore a pass into the kingmaker role might just be the sort of thing that neither Obama nor Clinton desire. There is a chance that doing so will give him the opportunity to craft the message and sideline the candidates’ favorite issues for the primacy of planetary fever. Up until now, neither candidate, near as I can tell, has centerpieced AGW as a critical issue. If Gore’s influence becomes meaningfull, what are the implications for the Democratic Platform and the campaign narrative?
Inquiring minds want to know…
If Dems have the presidency and Congress, Global Warming isn’t an issue anymore, not same as now anyway. Albert is clenching.
Is he? Clenching, that is? This has sort of hit me with one of those “duh” moments. Despite the shilling press for Barry O’Kennedy and Hilliweepie Gore is the most visible, well known and feted Democrat on the planet. He has been bestowed more righteous moral authority than the Pope, more than our Dem candidates could ever dream about, even the messiah. Yet his morally transcendant issue is being consistantly “oh, by the wayed” in this primary season. The polls indicate that health care, the economy and Iraq are what voters are thinking about. Gore has stated time and again that the planetary fever is TEH MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN TEH HISTORY!! Yet it barely registers on the current political landscape.
If he’s going to be approached by the party muckety-mucks then he will ask for something in return. The only thing they can give him that has any appeal is a centerpiece AGW issue pimping at the convention and some kind of platform primacy. Are Democrats willing to do that in the face of their sainted polls?
If this story, and Gore as kingmaker, fades into the ethersphere, we’ll know that the answer was NO!
I have to admit I don’t understand Albert very well at all. He’s such a tortured little soul.
Al Gore == Muqtada al-Sadr.
Daddy was really important, a significant figure. Sonnyboy was raised in that atmosphere and sees himself as continuing along the same lines. Unfortunately he isn’t as smart as Daddy was, and has to cling to the fringes.
It’s beginning to look like AGW is going to tank as an issue, at least here in the US — the Canadians will probably cling to it as a way to express solidarity with the Europeans they so admire, and the Mexicans have lots and lots of other problems that come first — and the more real science gets done and publicized, the less like an Emergency Requiring Immediate Action® it looks. If AGW disappears, Al’s got nothing.
Regards,
Ric
You misspelled “fetid.”
I agree with you, Ric. The very lack of centrality of this issue in the canpaigns backs that up. So why, oh why, do some members of the Democrat party think that Gore has clout as a kingmaker?
Is it that they are willfully ignorant or delusional?
OK, that was a rhetorical question.
Al still has the obesity epidemic going for him.
Heh, hf, I see the rising of a new political movement:
GORE/BLOOMBERG: THE LARD BUTT CHRONICLES! All your transfats are belong to us!
bj, the word you’re groping for is “desperate”.
The only hope Democrats have right now for avoiding a major crackup is the arrival of a Messiah to make everything right. They’re in the process of casting about for one, and coming up empty. Gore never had the real prominence and influence needed to serve in that role, but who’re they gonna call? Kerry?
Regards,
Ric
Yup, Ric. Now say it with me:
KUCINICH SAVIOR!! AS CRAZEE AS PAUL BUT LESS RACY!
Crazy ain’t enough, BJ. If it was they could call in Jerry Brown.
Regards,
Ric
Yeah Ric:
One of Johnny Carson’s best ad libbed lines was, after Robin Williams made fun of Clinton’s “I never inhaled” foolishness, he raised the spectre of Jerry Brown. Carson, quick as a whip, pounced, “Now there’s a guy who never exhaled!” Williams fell off of his seat.
Indeed, teh crazee!
probably because he was the last one elected President. ;D
the other thing I love is most of the FNC Dem talkers are all, “there’s no controversy about superdelegates. there’s not going to be a problem come convention time.”
Except an inconvenient truth.