New York Times Columnist Calls a Foul

(Note: Arthur wrote this February 10th. )


The Times endorsed Hillary Clinton in the NY Primary, but this editorial by Frank Rich appears to be moving the Times perilously close to switching camps in mid-primary. In an appearance before the Maine primary Clinton has again appeared to be taking questions from planted members of the audience, asking set-up questions. She got called on that earlier in the primary campaign, said that it was a dumb decision by a staffer who had been admonished or fired and would never happen again. But clearly it has. Rich is making strong statements about the Clinton campaign in this article. He sounds angry and contemptuous. When the press turns on a candidate that carries with it some incredible dangers. They have the resources to do some digging back into previous statements and actions that the public lacks the ability to follow up on. If the press feels that they are being played for fools they can easily become hostile, sometimes very hostile. We may not all read the NY Times, but the other journalists do. This sort of editorial can be deadly, particularly if Clinton loses the Maine caucuses today and then takes a hit this Tuesday in Virginia and Maryland, as seems increasingly likely.

Clinton can point to her victory in California, but I would caution others not to make too much of it. It is possible to get a permanent absentee ballot in CA, just by asking. Many people fill out their ballot and send it in when they receive it a month before the primary, so they won't lose it. If you lose it you have to go in and sign something saying you lost your ballot and be given some good- natured guff by the polling volunteers. There were two million plus absentee ballots in CA, most of them mailed long before Obama began to get some attention and momentum.

Meanwhile, over in Camp Bush, Mike Huckabee is having his own moment in the sun. The core Republican base seems torn as to who they dislike more, McCain or Huckabee. Both are seen as economically liberal or at least erratic, with Huckabee seen as more socially regressive, hence a nicer guy. Anyone who supports Christian militias and thinks the theory of evolution is an affront to God is not my idea of a "nice guy". McCain appears to have a permanently clenched jaw, as a result of skin cancer surgery and is said to be prone to lighting up on his colleagues if they disagree with him on legislation. With McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee for 2008 this could turn into an interesting campaign. Barack Obama increasingly seems to be the story on the Democratic side. He appears to be better liked by the press, which is be a huge benefit. Obama has some negatives of his own, that may be problematic in the general election, but his youth and speaking ability may be more than sufficient to help him win, if he makes it through the primary battle. And it will be a battle. At some point Team Clinton may realize that they are eroding the value of their brand name, but that moment has not yet happened. On balance, former Presidents probably should not campaign for their spouses. I find that the more of Bill Clinton that I see and hear, the less I want to see and hear. Less of him would make my heart grow fonder. He probably doesn't care what I think. What I think is that it is healthy for Democracies to have new faces, new advisors, new alliances, rather than just keep driving in the same ruts again and again, no matter how familiar those ruts are. Time for a change.

Arthur