June 6, 2008

Editorial oozes

As reported on this very blog, way back when, The New York Times prematurely anointed Hillary Clinton as the chosen one for the Democrat's presidential nominee, in what was, at the least, an intellectually sloppy piece of sycophancy.

Some months later, with Hillary incapable of conceding to that man, The New York Times is having the same problem with reality.

So far in my lifetime this is the worst, most convoluted, obsequious, unctuous, invious, mendacious, circumbendibus editorial I have ever read.

It's over. Now it begins.


  1. Or something happened on the way to Hillary's coronation. Sometimes s**t happens.

    I can only hope Americians see what an empty suit Obammy is...

  2. Just watched the political pundits on CNN (360). One fellow said that the campaign had gone west when Hillary ignored the caucuses (which she indeed did hence Obama's numbers in them). He rounded off by saying that the Clinton campaign had failed to understand their importance to the process in the just as they seemingly have failed to grasp that they've lost the process

    Boom boom!

  3. I think pointing to failures in Hillary's campaign is like shooting fish in a barrel Father.

    Pick a reason, any reason - there are several dozen reasons, an agglomeration of elements, no single one being the smoking gun.

    The fact of her having carried on the campaign for so long, in and of itself, gave ample time and opportunity for the creation of a myriad confluence of reasons, which might not otherwise have been the case.