Under Obama reporter-supporter Patrick Healy’s byline, the New York Times runs a puff piece today all about what an even tempered, regular guy in the neighborhood Obama is.
We even learn that on "Wednesday evening, he got home early to spend time with his two young daughters and take one of them to a bookstore in their neighborhood.”
Who says the Times isn’t taking a close look at Obama’s activities?
In the middle of the lengthy story we find this misrepresentation of what Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin have been saying about unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers:
Senator John McCain, Gov. Sarah Palin and their Republican allies are increasingly trying to tag Mr. Obama with the word “radical,” arguing that he prefers radical friends (Bill Ayers, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright) and has a radical tax plan and health care plan (even if both are fundamentally Democratic).McCain and Palin aren’t referring to Ayers as a “radical.” They call him a terrorist. Palin did so repeatedly this weekend. The McCain ad below twice refers to Ayers as a “terrorist.”
But the Times wants to mellow things out for its candidate, so it misrepresents what McCain-Palin are saying by substituting the much milder description “radical” for the one the two GOP candidate are actually using: “terrorist.”
Anything for Obama.
And did you notice Healy’s and the Times’ “even if both are fundamentally Democratic?”
That’s the kind of commentary that’s supposed to be reserved for the editorial page.
But at the Times – news columns, editorial page, whatever – as long as it helps Obama.
BTW – The story takes a lot of swipes at President Bill Clinton to whom Obama is gushingly compared.
The swipes (gratuitous and nasty) IMO are sure signs the Times isn’t satisfied with the help the Clintons are giving Obama.
If the Times was satisfied with what the Clinton are doing for Obama, it would have swiped at some other presidential figure.
W, for instance.