« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
NYT Deceives Readers
"A newspaper that betrays its reader's trust is not worth the paper it is printed on"
The NYT is deceiving their readers.
They are deliberately feeding faulty news about the primary.
One example can be found in today's article, "Obama Draws Huge Crowd in Oregon as Clinton Courts Kentucky"
"And she has argued to audiences here that she is leading in the popular vote, based on a count that includes the elections in Florida and Michigan, whose votes were moved up in violation of Democratic Party rules. (Mr. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan; neither candidate campaigned in Florida.)"
The truth that the NYT does not tell you:
1. Obama chose not to be on the ballots;
2. Obama PREVENTED a re-vote in these two states;
3. South Carolina also moved its election up in DNC violation. But mysteriously, the DNC chose not to penalize SC. Apparently, only pro Clinton states get penalized.
Depressing to watch the NYT use its past reputation to promote the hijacking of our democratic primary.
Comments (19)
Obama didn't prevent a re-vote in Florida
or Michigan.
May 19, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes he did.
What planet have you been living on?
May 19, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever you compare a Presidential candidate to Hitler you lose all credibility in whatever else you say.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/oregon-wants-das-fuhrer.php
May 19, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here, Sweetie
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903258.html
May 19, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not going to argue whether Obama prevented a re-vote. This could be and has been argued ad-infinitum with neither side being completely right. Obama wanted a revote done one way Clinton wanted it done another. Not to mention the states never had a final plan on how to pay for it. Neither could agree
Yes Obama opted off MI ballot along with every other candidate except Hillary. If the vote wasn't going to count why be on the ballot. However, Mi has proposed a settlement That the Obama campaign has agreed to but the Clinton campaign has not.
Iowa, NH, SC all received permission from the DNC for their dates.
And the big question would Hillary's campaign be making such a big deal out of MI and FL if it had closed down after Super Tuesday as she originally planned?
Why was the DNC plan fine with all the candidates at the beginning of the process, but now that it's not working out for one candidate the system is at fault?
May 19, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Obama opted off MI ballot along with every other candidate except Hillary
----------------------------------------------
Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich were on the MI ballot. Interestingly enough, Dodd was the first candidate to sign the pledge but refused to remove his name from the ballot. Here is a statement by Dodd at the time. Hillary's statement was similar.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html
While Dodd's campaign is "committed to the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire going first," Dodd will not withdraw from the ballot, said Dodd's communications director Hari Sevugan.
"It does not benefit any of us, if we are the nominee, to pull our name off the ballot and slight Michigan voters," Sevugan said.
I have never seen an honest and objective discussion of this issue. I don't expect there will be one until the historians write about it 10 years from now. But you know, its history already. All the facts are out there in the newspaper's archives. Here's a few questions that one might consider when thinking about the situation in MI. The pledge was signed by most candidates on or near Sept 1. Why did the 4 who removed their names
wait until Oct 9 to do so, the last day it was possible to remove their names? If the pledge required they remove their names why did they wait 5 weeks to do it? Why did Biden, Obama, Richardson, Edwards and Kucinich wait until the last day they could submit paperwork to remove their names to announce they were removing their names? Just a coincidence? If these were independent decisions why didn't one of
them remove their name a week before the deadline and another 3 days before or 3 weeks before the deadline? Are they all terrible procrastinators? Why didn't kucinich get his paperwork in on time? Was he just the worst procrastinator of all? Was he just to stupid to know the deadline? Why didn't Dodd remove his name? He was the first one to
sign the pledge to not campaign or spend money in the state yet he refused to remove his name.
May 19, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slumlord is wrong. We've been through this a thousand times.
The candidates signed a four-state agreement in 2007. If any state held its primary before Iowa, N.H., Nevada and South Carolina, candidates agreed not to campaign or PARTICIPATE in that state's primary.
FL and MI moved their primaries ahead of those four states. In December 2007, the DNC ruled that theses states would lose all their delegates.
Sen. Clinton acknowledged that the primaries wouldn't count, and their delegates wouldn't count.
That is, until after FL and MI held their primaries, and Sen. Clinton found herself losing the election. At which time, she broke her agreement and demanded FL and MI count.
The FL and MI state legislatures tried but failed to pass revote plans.
Obama did not prevent any revote. It's essentially meaningless that he and other candidates including John Edwards took his name off the ballot in MI.
May 19, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama aggressively worked behind the scenes to
prevent revotes.
This is a well-known fact.
I am at work, and do not have time to hunt up
links, but anyone with time can do a GOOGLE.
May 19, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will add, that it makes me sick the way
Obama has paid Trolls deployed in all of our
blogs, to mislead.
The USA is quickly turning into the old Soviet Union,
where all communication is under government surveillance.
May 19, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, it's hard to hear you under that tinfoil hat.
May 19, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
He forgot to attach the ground cable...
May 19, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama ran ads in FL, which were illegal according
to party rules.
Clinton stomped his ass anyway.
May 19, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's not wrong, he's lying.
There's a difference.
May 19, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Slumlord, I've discovered that if you want to receive rec's for your post, it helps to put the word "chickens" in your title.
May 19, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS TO JSFOX:
CLINTON SIGNED THE PLEDGE NOT TO CAMPAIGN ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE CANIDATES. SHE SAYS SHE DIDNT GO ALONG WITH IT WHEN AGAIN SHE LIED.
MI. HAS A DEMOCRATIC GOV. SENATE, AND HOUSE SO THEY KNEW THEY WERE IN TROUBLE WHEN THEY MOVED UP THE ELECTION. SO THOSE VOTES SHOULDNT COUNT WHEN THERE WERE OVER 7 HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE THAT DIDNT EVEN GO TO THE POLLS THAT DAY BECAUSE THEY KNEW WHAT THE PARTY DID. SO I DONT WANT TO HEAR ALL THIS CRAP NOW ABOUT POOR HILLARY AND SHE DIDNT NOT WIN THE VOTE COUNT PERIOD
May 19, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A newspaper that betrays its reader's trust is not worth the paper it is printed on"
Surely Slumlord noble, never abuse the making my trust of post. NYT bad, Slumlord good.
May 19, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Arse Troll who uses two names complains about
deception. How very Turdblossomish of "Present"/slumlord
May 19, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
A better title for this post would be:
SLUMLORD DECEIVES HIMSELF...AGAIN
May 19, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It'd be less deceiving if the media had turned their cameras to show the 10 reporters who made up the crowd of "supporters" who greeted her at the airport in Charleston WV.
It'd be less deceiving if they'd mentioned how phony it was of her to stand at the top of the airway steps smiling and waving to the nonexistent crowd, even pointing to and pretending to recognize a friend she hadn't seen in awhile who in fact was one of her staffers who had deplaned just a moment earlier.
They could have mentioned that the 10 reporters assigned to her campaign in WV were in stark contrast to the hoard that used to follow her. They could have mentioned that her campaign is still so disorganized they chartered two large press buses to follow her the next day, one "filled" with the desultory band of 10 spread out comfortably in their now spacious traveling digs, and one which sat empty idling in front of the hotel until evening when a bewildered call by the bus company to her DC office finally released the driver to take it back to the depot.
May 19, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment