New York Times Endorses Hillary Clinton for President

October 3, 2007 – New York (FYMP) – The New York Times, this morning, issued a de facto endorsement of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton this morning. The affirmation came in the form of an informational article about the fund-raising efforts of candidates in the third quarter of this year. According to Patrick Healy, Ms. Clinton has stripped Barack Obama of “a crucial political advantage” and “depriv[ed] his campaign of the bragging rights that he was more popular with contributors despite Mrs. Clinton’s strong performance in opinion polls and televised debates.”

In a word, the momentum has turned.


This turn has occurred despite the fact that Barack Obama retains practically insurmountable leads in fund-raising and the enrollment of new donors. The New York Times concedes:

“Mr. Obama has raised more money than Mrs. Clinton over all for the 2008 primaries, $75 million to $63 million, and he cumulatively has 140,000 more new donors (those who had not given previously to his campaign.) Independent analysts said that his fund-raising had been impressive given that he was still new to the political scene compared with Mrs. Clinton, and that he had raised money at a good clip even though he had not improved markedly in national polls.”

Note the use of past tense in this paragraph. Mr. Healy appears to be announcing to the world that Mr. Obama’s campaign has reached its zenith. Contrast that with these depictions of the Clinton campaign:

“But the Clinton camp made sure to trumpet its fund-raising numbers to its best strategic advantage, releasing the figures just hours before Mr. Obama delivered a foreign policy address on the fifth anniversary of his speech opposing a possible invasion of Iraq.”

“The Clinton campaign revealed its fund-raising success in a way that sought maximum strategic impact. First, in recent weeks, some Clinton advisers and donors had depressed expectations for her third-quarter results, predicting that she would raise about $20 million while suggesting Mr. Obama would raise closer to $30 million.

Then, as Mr. Obama was announcing his fund-raising results on Monday, the Clinton campaign kept quiet because it did not want to share the news cycle with him, Clinton advisers say. As a final move, yesterday, the advisers said they deliberately tried to upstage Mr. Obama during his Iraq speech.

The advisers attributed the fund-raising results to a new focus on low-dollar events, which people can attend by donating $25, for example, instead $1,000 or more, which have been common at Clinton events. The campaign held 20 low-dollar events since July, compared with six from April to June.”

Today, according to Newsweek, Mr. Obama has supplanted Ms. Clinton as the candidate of choice in Iowa. Today, contributions and donors are still coming in at a good clip. Today, the fund-raising is as impressive as it was in June. Today, the junior senator from Illinois retains a sizeable dollar advantage over the darling of the machine.

Tomorrow, however, he will press on without the endorsement of the New York Times.



  1. Let me know if you think this thought process is a stretch, but is there any ‘blog power’ behind this that the MSM doesn’t recognize as power yet??
    Are there enough people fed up with the machine (traditional machine that is, Obama is still on team machine LOL) that are pushing Barak’s campaign forward that just don’t register with the NYT and that use tactics that don’t register with them either? For some reason I this smells like all the MSM stories about how they completely missed the Jena build-up and were caught off guard by how technology and new media were used and galvanized a temporary block of power. Of course I know the stakes are much, much, much higher in this instance and if any ‘blog power’ becomes an embarassing dynamic the machine will use all kinds of grimy methods to quell it rather than just report quaint follow-up stories.

  2. I don’t believe there is any doubt to what you’re saying. The media is not run by independent journalists writing objective stories (as we well know). This tapestry of the status quo comprises edited items aligned to existing agendas. Blogs, to the extent, they do not reflect a popular message are discarded…to the extent they do, they are embraced and lauded for their novelty and independence. Remember it was liberal bloggers who were credited with Ned Lamont’s initial success in Connecticut – even though they had to use BlackFace to get it done. Jane Hamsher and her peeps dug deep in their Jolson bag to get skrate anti-Black as a tool to caricature Joe Lieberman. There were probably too many gays/lesbians on the keyboards to go to sexual orientation tatooing – so they went for the white supremacist angle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s