The New York Times, after much struggle, has finally been forced to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton is in fact running against someone. They’re doing so reluctantly, and here’s an example.
Even in an article with his name in the title, Bernie Sanders is mentioned 28 times compared to Mrs. Clinton’s 41. If you look up the word “small,” it’s always in retaliation to Bernie. Author Amy Chozick even aids us (assuming we’ve no idea who he is) by defining him as a “a small-state senator who has never run for national office, has shown surprising fund-raising muscle.”
Psst, Amy: Another word for “fund-raising muscle,” is “support.”
Even so, our dear reporter doesn’t acknowledge that Bernie actually could possibly win a nomination, mostly just running under the oh-so-objective assumption that Hillary will win, but that it just might be “an expensive slog.”
That’s the problem when you don’t have enough support: you have to buy it.
What the article does, admittedly, report on, is how confident the Hillary campaign was that it didn’t need to do actual work to win the primary: “Even though the Clinton team has sought to convey that it has built a national operation, the campaign has invested much of its resources in the Feb. 1 caucuses in Iowa, hoping that a victory there could marginalize Mr. Sanders and set Mrs. Clinton on the path to the nomination.”
And her friends at The New York Times sure tried to help her.
Other wonderful ways of saying positive things in the most negative way for Bernie: “Many of his donors have yet to give him the maximum individual contribution of $2,700, meaning they could be tapped repeatedly if the contest remains close.”
In other words: many people are giving Bernie Sanders small amounts of money.
It’s that pesky s-word all over again.
“Mrs. Clinton has many strengths to exploit: In a Democratic primary, candidates are awarded delegates based on their vote totals, so Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders can get close to the roughly 2,200 needed to secure the nomination by racking up a combination of victories and solid second-place showings.”
Any strengths mentioned for Bernie? Besides, you know, his “surprising fund-raising muscle”? Not according to The New York Times! Unless you count how much he sucks at getting black votes: “Mrs. Clinton has deep support among blacks and Latinos. Mr. Sanders, by contrast, has struggled to connect with minorities and trails Mrs. Clinton by double digits in Nevada and South Carolina, which vote later next month.”
Why is that? Our reporter wouldn’t deign to go into details.
If that wasn’t damning enough, she launches one further piece of evidence that Bernie Objectively (because the NY Times is objective, is it not?) Sucks:
“At a fish fry hosted by Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, held at an outdoor pavilion in Charleston on the eve of the debate on Sunday, Mrs. Clinton received a raucous welcome and chants of “Hillary! Hillary!” Mr. Sanders received a less enthusiastic response.”
That’s right: Bernie lost the fish fry vote. That’s like, 70% of America, right?
But despite sucking and having no support from rich people, he is doing one thing right: “Mr. Sanders’s campaign has also been crunching the delegate math. It says he can outperform Mrs. Clinton with white voters and voters under 45, who favor Mr. Sanders two to one, and pick up delegates in states that have caucuses rather than primaries.”
That’s right: some pesky, bullshit, white-support -based Jew tricks. Man, if only he was as awesome as Hillary with her “deep support among blacks and Latinos” given to her by Bill Clinton’s name recognition and campaigning in those communities Providence Herself.
And by the way, when you look at this reporters “political” articles: they’re almost all about Hillary. Except when they’re about Bill.
Now, I’m not railing against Clinton here. She’s a politician who literally had to release a cookie recipe in the 90’s(oh look, The New York Times carries an article on that too!) when Bill was afraid her statement about homemakers would threaten his rise to power. As far as I’m concerned, she’s your normal, run-of-the-mill, power-hungry, amoral politician trying to grab power in any way she can.
But.
The New York Times, might I remind you, is not supposed to be Hillary’s personal blog. It is supposed to objectively report; and though, as this post might suggest, I believe objectivity is bullshit, at least attempt to better hide your prejudices, New York Times. What happened to reporters being against the establishment, reporting on all, friends of none? What happened to an ungentlemanly press whose job it was to seek out corruption, to pass on information to us humans who have other things to do than test all of our politician’s lies one-by-one?
As far as I’m concerned, it’s in Hillary Clinton’s job description to be a lying bastard.
But why does The New York Times think it’s their job too?
this is real this is fiction 