Jill Abramson, another Times numbers-runner for Sulzberger and Howell Raines, contradicted Clinton's formal "explanation" for the Rich pardon on the very same day it appeared in the paper. They don't believe Democrats have a real strategy for taking the guy on."Įven McAuliffe wouldn't comment on the record about his buddy Clinton, telling Berke, "I'm talking about the future."īut what's your future, Terry? Maybe one-to-three in a minimum-security prison camp? They think the Democrats have essentially rolled over and are letting Bush have his way. I'm not blaming it on the Gore campaign, but that is a fact of life."Ĭarter Eskew, a Gore-Lieberman lieutenant: "People in the fund-raising community who are ideologically driven are very disappointed. Bush ran on bringing dignity back and I think the actions by Clinton of the last couple of weeks are giving him a pretty good platform."ĭick Gephardt: "In retrospect, if we had a little wind at the top of the ticket, it would have helped in some of those close races. 16, headlined "Democrats See a Party Adrift as Presidential Loss Sinks In." It's part of the plan: If the Times weren't intent on forcing Clinton (and Gore) off the national stage, and exiling him to a life of golf at restricted country clubs, Berke would never have included the following comments from prominent liberals.īill Daley, Gore's campaign chairman: "It's terrible, devastating, and it's rather appalling. Richard Berke, the Times' "star" political correspondent whose articles in the 2000 campaign seemed vetted by the Gore campaign, had an astonishing front-page story on Feb. (A quick digression: Isn't it criminal how geeky pundits have besmirched Elvis Presley, one of the country's prized cultural icons, by associating him with Clinton?) To dip into Times columnist Maureen Dowd's scant repertoire, Clemenza would never betray Don Sulzberger Clinton was always the smart one. and Tina Brown used to affectionately call Elvis, and hang him from a tree in Central Park. So it's goodbye cruel world to the toad Arthur Sulzberger Jr. offices disaster, his scuzzy White House departure and the unexplainable Rich pardon?that he's no longer of any use in the ongoing quest to defeat the GOP-controlled Congress in 2002 and then President Bush in 2004. Gacek's contention is that Clinton, in the last month, has sullied himself so thoroughly?with McAuliffe's coronation, the $800,000 57th St. The Times never cared about Juanita Broaddrick, the transfer of rocket and satellite technology to China or the unprecedented attacks against Kenneth Starr." He e-mailed: "What is really behind the establishment press turning on Bill Clinton? I don't believe The New York Times is even remotely outraged by the Rich pardon. 17, however, Chris Gacek, a New York Press reader from Alexandria, VA, offered an explanation that is sublimely obvious, but hasn't been published elsewhere. I was skeptical at the rat-a-tat-tat blasts every day, but couldn't quite figure out the motive.
![shadow president pol shadow president pol](https://editorial01.shutterstock.com/wm-preview-450/10359670b/becbb7d5/putin-joins-night-wolves-on-crimea-bike-festival-sevastopol-russian-federation-shutterstock-editorial-10359670b.jpg)
![shadow president pol shadow president pol](https://independentnorth.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Screenshot_2021-01-18-Statsminister-Marin-kraver-att-ryska-oppositionspolitikern-Navalnyj-friges-omedelbart-president-Nii...-690x550.png)
So is the sky falling? On the surface, it does seem odd, when the Times and Wall Street Journal editorials?on this one issue?dovetail in their vehement condemnation of the 42nd president. That is the unique circumstance that will linger in the minds of Americans whenever they contemplate this gross misuse of a solemn presidential responsibility." Clinton argues, a pardon may be granted based on undefined 'unique circumstances.' The story of this pardon begins and ends with money and the access afforded by money. On Monday, a Times editorial resumed fire on its guest author, concluding: "Sometimes, Mr. It was a stiff piece, written by attorney David Kendall and touched up by John Podesta, and, as the Times' editors certainly anticipated, it simply exacerbated Clinton's credibility problems. Last Sunday, on its op-ed pages, the Times tricked the ex-president by giving him ample space to make a ludicrous defense of the controversial decision. Bill Clinton is Public Enemy Number One, with most of the ink slamming him for the pardon of Marc Rich. The millionaire's Socialist Newspaper of Record has been relentless in its ostracism: whether it's Hillary's fishy cash-up-front book deal the installation of sleazebag Terry McAuliffe as chairman of the Democratic National Committee Al Gore's closed-door lecture at a journalism school or presidential counsel Jack Quinn's interesting choice of legal clients.
![shadow president pol shadow president pol](https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/998ca29/2147483647/strip/true/crop/3601x2400+600+0/resize/2000x1333!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F6a%2F0a%2Fc1cd6b5d415c9ce348e0f8f0553f%2Fla-ca-pol-presidential-vote-06.jpg)
Another day, another New York Times editorial or news story dumping on the Clinton administration.