My Photo
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Thursday, April 24, 2008

The New York Times declares war on America

Clinton or Obama? Andy Martin votes for ABC News. Andy says ABC News hit a home run with its Pennsylvania debate. The New York Times manifested extreme arrogance and contempt for the American people.

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”







(NEW YORK)(April 24, 2008) The New York Times has declared war on America, pronounced a state of emergency and demanded an end to politics. The Midtown Musharrafs of the Times have castigated Hillary Clinton for winning the Pennsylvania primary, and for doing so in what I believe was a most ladylike manner. What gives? Has the “Gray Lady” become Barry Obama’ mommy? It appears so.

Thank God for ABC News.

In a vitriolic editorial “The Low Road to Victory,” the Times “did not get the big win in Pennsylvania,” (she did) and that “Voters are getting tired of it,” (despite the record turnout). Alone among major media the Times refused to round off Clinton’s win to “10%.”

Not surprisingly, Barack Obama fled Pennsylvania before the vote was counted so that he could salute “Evansville” (Indiana) and its local officials on national TV. All Hail Evansville.

The liberal script for the 2008 election is being shredded by, of all places, ABC News.

First, a little context and perspective. The 2008 primary election is not “over a year old,” as Obama likes to claim. And he has not really “debated” over “twenty times.” For almost a year, the Democratic presidential campaign was a carnival, in which Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were equal participants. And, of course there was always the “unity” clown, Bill Richardson. In other words, the real primary election did not begin until mid-February when the sideshows closed and the main event began. The first seventeen or eighteen debates were forums where a long line of pretend candidates answered pretend questions and played pretend dodge ball with each other.

Indeed, the “early” campaign lulled Barack Obama into measuring for drapes in the White House. He decided he really was a presidential candidate, and probably even the president-to-be. “If my mommy the Gray Lady is for me, who can stand against me,” Obama may have thought to himself. Despite “endorsing” Clinton, the Times’ coverage was heavily slanted in favor of Obama. Just count the front-page stories and the vacuous “news” about Obama that found an excuse to appear in the newspaper.

The entire media world played “pretend politics” and anointed the great presidential pretender, Barack Obama—he of the killing fields on the South Side of Chicago—as the next president. Then reality intruded.

Hillary Clinton begged to differ. Mrs. Clinton is not a ”pretend politician.” On March 6th, Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal said “Hillary Clinton’s comfort zone has two modes: attack and counterattack.” Truly. Mr. Henninger may have written the best slug line for Barack Obama’s professed purpose in life, to “attack Washington” and enact “change.” Except that he can’t use it himself. Pattycake Obama has never “changed” anything in Springfield; his cohorts are currently on trial in federal court. He has not “changed” anything in the U. S. Senate.

Barack Obama is a charismatic speaker, from a teleprompter, and a decent fellow, if an extremely leftish one. But he is not someone you can count on to attack or counterattack [cue Osama’s picture]. Hillary is the one who would attack the problems in Washington or around the world. Dan Henninger is right about that. She may not look transformational. But her personality is.

Who is Obama going to put in charge of the Pentagon? Maybe William Ayers? (Or even Bernadine Dohrn?) When has Barry Obama ever “attacked” anyone or anything in his public life? Never. He is the safest percentage player in the game. A Babe Ruth he ain’t. And so when Obama finally came face-to-face with a real opponent in a real format, he wilted. He imploded. Imploded.

Enter ABC News. ABC news has been unfairly criticized for producing the best television of 2008, or perhaps the best of last twenty years in American politics. The Palm Beach Post on April 22nd criticized ABC for covering “Internet issues.” Lordy, lordy. The big, bad Internet.

Well, I happen to be on the Internet, and millions of voters are on the Internet, and we have a say in this race, a big say. The “Mainstream Media” (MSM’s) no longer dictate to us. And the MSM’s hate us for our freedom and independence. I am best known as someone who has questioned Senator Obama, and increasingly known as Senator Clinton’s only media champion, but I am not supporting or opposing anyone. I call ‘em the way I see ‘em.

And I don’t like what I see at the New York Times. That newspaper hates Americans. And it hates our way of doing things. The Times prefers the “pretend politics” of the past, dominated by MSM’s, to the unruly campaign in the present, where the people are in the driver’s seat.

What is pretend politics? Well, the Democrats love pretend politics. They pretend they have solutions for sickness (“quality health care”). They pretend they have a solution for the mess President Bush created in Iraq (“immediate withdrawal”). And they pretend the Democratic Party is just one big happy family (hint: “it isn’t”). So why are they pretending?

In my home town, an unrepentant anti-American terrorist and his wife are pillars of Mayor Richard Daley’s Chicago. Where else would confessed bombers, whose only regret is they didn’t bomb enough federal buildings, be part of the “elite” of the City? My colleague John Kass at The Chicago Tribune devoted a little shoe leather to breaking a story on the Ayers family that has not yet hit New York, despite the New Yorky origin of the events in question.,0,3364134.column It isn’t pleasant.

As for Reverend Jeremiah Wright, well Reverend Wright is having a “coming out” party in Washington on April 28th at the National Press Club in Washington. Fasten your seat belts. Obama may want to be in Evansville again when Wright is in Washington.

Why are the personalities of the candidates so critical? It’s the presidency, stupid. Yes, the White House. What kind of a person are we being asked to elect? The Democrats largely agree on the issues. And so, in Marketing 101, when products are identical, you use advertising/marketing to sell the product on its perceived differences. Clinton’s most controversial ads have never even mentioned Obama’s name. Negative ads? Come on. Good ads? Great ads.

Since Obama has endorsed all three remaining candidates for president (as “better than Bush”), and Mrs. Clinton has endorsed herself and Senator McCain on national security, may I hazard my own views? Like Daniel Henninger, I see Mrs. Clinton for what she is. And guess what? She has had to make a lot of compromises and eat a lot of dirt to get to where she is today. Surprise, surprise. Any junior executive, let alone the head of a major corporation, would have the same battle scars as Mrs. Clinton. And a lot of dirt in their past diet.

But at the end of the day, if John McCain loses and the D’s take the White House, yes, I would sleep better knowing HRC was wandering around the White House at 3:00 A.M. instead of BHO, Ayers and Wright.

And, frankly, although I am a registered Republican and proud of it, I see major deficiencies in the platforms of both political parties (which probably explains why I am a better columnist than candidate). Neither party has a monopoly on virtue, or wisdom, or compassion. Or anything. But I do believe the competitive two-party process will produce better policy than a diktat from the editorial page of the New York Times or Palm Beach Post.

And yes, politics is messy, disorderly, and nasty. Democrats have become the effete party; no nastiness there. Well, Clinton and Obama (he under protest) are giving Dems a wakeup call on the real world. Instead of crying like frightened schoolgirls about the Republican onslaught, Dems should realize that Washington will never be an easy place to do business. Being a real leader is rough work, not prettiness and certainly not pretend politics.

ABC news covered the issues which really matter to voters. Sorry, but that’s the truth. Americans are very hypocritical about their viewing habits. If people weren’t hypocrites, the “vast wasteland” on commercial television could not survive and endure. People are interested in people, interested in personalities, interested in what makes others tick. And, yes, interested in “gotchas.” Mrs. Clinton does not like to back off or back down, but she was forced to eat dirt on national television, thanks to ABC News. Obama? Well Obama really had no explanation for the rogue’s gallery of characters in his life. Or his insouciant attitude towards everyday Americans (“guns and religion”). Pâté anyone?

“Late deciders” broke for Mrs. Clinton on Tuesday. I’m not surprised. On balance, she had a better debate.

What is really outraging the MSM’s and raises the hackles of the “Gray Lady” (New York Times) and the other MSM’s is that ABC News hit the jackpot. 10,000,000 pairs of them. Eyeballs. Gibson and Stephanopoulos hit a home run in the eyes of the public. They stripped the bark off both candidates.

And the anti-ABC brouhaha? In a word: jealousy. Olbermann and Matthews (he of the liquid leg when Obama enters the room) and Brokaw and Russert and Williams were just plain jealous that ABC did what television is supposed to do: expose. Create controversy. Confrontation. Unpleasantness and uneasiness. Mike Wallace made his media “bones” that way. A long time ago.

Although I began writing in print media at the Daily Illini, forty years ago I entered the world of broadcasting. I have produced programs, produced commercials, run campaigns and done just about everything there is to do in media. And so unlike writers/columnists who have spent their lives in only one dimension of the communications galaxy, I have lived in all of them. Multimedia man. What have I learned? Viewers want to see real people face real questions and confront real problems. It may not have been pretty, because in the world of “pretend politics” ABC News rapidly became a pariah. But what ABC accomplished was gripping.

The ABC News debate was a game-changing event. Trial-by-combat may not be easy to watch. Blood sports never are. That’s why we outlaw them in this country. But ABC’s debate was genuine. The Times editorial is unreal.

ABC News has my vote for the best debate of 2008. A real debate. Between two candidates fighting for their lives. Real television. Real politics. Powerful television.

As for the Midtown Musharrafs at the Times who want to declare an emergency, suspend politics, silence powerful TV advertising and anoint Barry Obama president….Barack Obama? President? Stay tuned to ABC. ABC may be MSM, but Charley and George proved they live in the real world. The editors of the Times do not.

Chicago's Number One Internet columnist, broadcaster and media critic, Andy Martin, is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with more than forty years of experience. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. He has been a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Columns also posted at;


Post a Comment

<< Home