NY Times And Clinton: Racism Wins
So what was the purpose of the earlier Times editorial criticizing the Clinton campaign for race-baiting? Why bring up the ugly tactics at all if the newspaper knew it was going to endorse senator Clinton a few days later?
[Black Star News Editorial]
The New York Times early this week criticized the Clinton campaign for injecting lowly race-baiting tactics into the Democratic primary campaign. The newspaper appeared respectable on that occasion.
Today, the newspaper repudiated its own earlier critical editorial by endorsing the beneficiary of the race-bating, Senator Hillary Clinton. Her campaign’s principle characters are the senator herself and former president Bill Clinton, who has in recent weeks become a most obnoxious character with his vicious personalized attacks against senator Barack Obama.
So what was the purpose of the earlier Times editorial criticizing the Clinton campaign for race-baiting? Why bring up the ugly tactics at all if the newspaper knew it was going to endorse senator Clinton a few days later? How are we to make any sense of the two editorials when placed together? How are we to take seriously the newspaper's attack, in the same editorial today, on former mayor Rudolph Giuliani for racial polarization of New York during his reign, while the Clinton's are now given a pass?
Are we to understand that while the Clinton’s did use race-baiting tactics to displace Obama from his original theme of unity, transparency and inclusiveness, it’s all fine because Hillary Clinton will somehow end up being the “best” president for the United States?
The Times editorial board can endorse any candidate it chooses to. But the newspaper reeks of rank hypocrisy when, within the same week it attacks a candidate for racist tactics, then ends up endorsing that same candidate for the presidency.
Score big points for race-baiting. Or to paraphrase Bill Clinton, message to the Times "Shame on you!"
No Record Exist!!