Tonight on the January 25th edition of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann", Keith asked the following question of Dana Milbank:
Senator Clinton and Iraq and the New York Times endorsement: If she can overcome with them this seemingly insurmountable problem of, she was behind the war at its beginnings, at least in terms of an option, and we can nuance that forever as what that actually meant. If she can overcome that sense that she was for the invasion, or at least the perception of that, is there something she cannot overcome in terms of the general election or even the rest of the nominating process?
Mr. Milbank's answers were reasonable, but it is the premise of this question that I would like to challenge.
The New York Times, Mr. Olbermann... really? That bastion of truth at the forefront of the mainstream liberal media? Really?
Maybe you haven't heard, or perhaps you've had the luxury of avoiding the New York Times for the last 5 or 6 years, but it was the New York Times itself that sold us this war. How shocking that they would endorse a candidate who like they, was in lockstep with the administration in cheerleading for this tragic war.
No sir, it is not the New York Times she needs to convince, though she would admittedly be in good alliance with the New York Times in attempting to convince the voters on why either of them should ever be trusted again.
The continued misguided portrayal of the New York Times as the liberal voice of our country is a great risk and a detriment to the liberal cause.