As I discussed here, yesterday's clash between Hillary and Barack Obama was perhaps the most bitter and open infighting between Dem presidential candidates in many an election cycle. Particularly given that it was comments by David Geffen quoted in a column by the New York Times' own Maureen Dowd that touched off the fracas, you would have thought the Times would have gone out of it way to highlight the intra-Dem battle. So . . . how did the New York Times portray the matter in its headline this morning? In Both Parties, 2008 Politeness Falls to Infighting.That's right, this isn't a problem unique to Dems. "Both parties" have suffered a 
failure of "politeness." Now it's true that over the last couple days, John McCain has taken verbal shots at Vice-President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and also criticized the Bush administration on the environment. But those were substantive critiques of policy. In contrast, Geffen's comments, with which Obama pointedly chose not to disassociate himself, could not have been more personal, calling the Clinton couple liars and Bill "reckless."
The Times furthered the moral equivalency with this helpful chart, documenting the barbs aimed by the respective Dems and Republicans.
But the Times decided to cast a pox on both political parties for their breach of politesse. Was this the Gray Lady's attempt to dilute the way in which the Hillary-Obama spat is tarnishing two of its own?
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
February 22, 2007 - 09:20 ET by the mad pole
fight night
February 22, 2007 - 09:20 ET by the mad poleHey wait a minute, We had ringside seats and some blood splattered, but we wuz framed! The least they could do is let us lace up our gloves!! Da bums.
No doubt one is supposed to
February 22, 2007 - 09:28 ET by dervishNo doubt one is supposed to draw the inference that the Republicans started it, so this nastiness is obviously their fault.
Mark, this is a very good post.
February 22, 2007 - 09:41 ET by acaiguanaMark, this is a very good post.
I knew the Democrat candidates would provide tremendous theater and mirth for the next 20.4 months; I had not really thought about how the MSM would try to spin it.
I think, this as a first try to dilute the insanity, is a very poor effort. Yes of course the WaPo wants to take the spotlight off the bloodletting that will occur and is starting to occur.
But this slant won't work. It's too 'nuanced' as an idiot we know would say.
But, gotta give them a 'C' for effort.
Back at ya - don't you think the silliness will overwhelm the MSM's ability to cover it up as the 'Cresendo March to the White House' mushrooms?
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
New York how could you do thi
February 22, 2007 - 11:18 ET by ucNew York how could you do this to the rest of America? Do you regret voting her into the Senate yet? What has she (not just her staff) done for you lately? Do your laws allow you to recall her? Her interest in Presidency is seeming to hint at possible diminished capacity, what do you all who know her better think?
Let's see if I got it right.A
February 22, 2007 - 11:31 ET by midnight cowboyLet's see if I got it right.
A liberal columnist, writes a story in a liberal newspaper, quoting a liberal activist, slamming a liberal senator, for being manipulative with her liberal ex-president husband, who they then slam another liberal senator to disavow the liberal activist, who kindly respsonds that a liberal state politician slandered the same race liberal senator that his race disqualifies him for president, and this is somehow all tied into the republicans.
Outside of puppy training, what use is the New York Times?
midnight - I think that summed it up, pretty much, kinda, sorta.
February 22, 2007 - 11:36 ET by acaiguanamidnight - I think that summed it up, pretty much, kinda, sorta.
We think alike sometimes.
:-)
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
This item just reminded me of
February 22, 2007 - 11:48 ET by kathleenirishThis item just reminded me of something. I took a course in which Hillary Clinton's book, "It Takes A Village" was one of the required textbooks. (I know, gag! gag!) I decided to risk the derision of all, especially my professor, by pointing out that she actually had another woman write this book, but gave her no credit for her contribution, and even supposedly threatened that writer if she came forward... and doesn't this violate the college's position of not using material that has been plagiarized or not properly attributed? (Wouldn't I get an 'F' on any paper that I used someone else's work without citing it?) My professor's response: "It sounds like something Karl Rove would do to discredit her." Seriously. She brought Karl Rove into this discussion, as if it were possible he had something to do with this 'rumor'. I knew then that there was no 'science' or reason that would sway these types of zealots.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
unequivocally equivocal
February 22, 2007 - 13:57 ET by acumenScrew a "village", it takes a whole megalopolis to shore the hypocrisy of the equivocating left.
BTW KI - Out of curiosity, did you have to go back undercover to pass the indoctrin.....er.....course?
I have learned the hard way
February 22, 2007 - 14:33 ET by kathleenirishI have learned the hard way that one must shut-up way more than speak-up. I have experienced some pretty blatant discrimination in the last two years at school and in my employment because of my political and religious affiliations. The way it really is in the so-called 'tolerant and open-minded liberal society' in which we supposedly live. Very, very sad and eye-opening.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
LA Times - vast RW conspiracy
February 22, 2007 - 14:07 ET by Gary HallMark. The LA Times had a similar problem, in today's edition. These folks just can't seem to go it alone with a story with negative implications for the Democrats, as they do with such on Republicans. It seems that anytime it's ugly (in their view) they have to drag the Republicans into it. Last week, they did it with the Edward's staff - bloggers, remember?
The writer, it seems, may have decided to go with the re-written history of the use of the term "vast, right-wing conspiracy," in regards to the Bill Clinton scandal. It was Hillary who falsely accused the Republicans, in calling them this, of making up the charges involving Bill Clinton's illicit use, for his own amusement, of an unpaid young intern, in the people's house.