Thursday, February 03, 2011
New York Times Bullshit
So where is the objectivity in this? Where is the sense?
Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times writes this article about the selection of the 2012 of the Democratic National Convention, which will be held in North Carolina this go round. The White House got to make the final decision as the head of the Party, and chose North Carolina (vs Cleveland, Minneapolis, and St. Louis) as a signal that the Party believes NC is a place where Democrats can make in-roads. And Zeleny makes this point in the second paragraph:
They also note that St. Louis did not get selected because:
The state has slipped out of the Democratic Party's reach in recent presidential elections and it is not expected to be among the top tier of places where Mr. Obama will compete in 2012.
Now the inexplicable happens. Based on "party officials familiar with the selection process," Senator Claire McCaskill--a Democrat representing MO. in the Senate--was privately telling the White House that she did not want the Convention held in MO because "her re-election would be complicated if the convention were held in St. Louis."
What?
Again, what???
Zeleny does not explain precisely how this would complicate her re-election bid. It seems readily apparent that the "party officials" speaking on anonymity were more likely Republican Party officials and not Democrats, because there is no angle to this story where McCaskill is helped by losing the Convention, nor is the administration helped by putting an important ally in danger by going public with such an awful story.
So Mr. Zeleny--who are these sources? Speak up. Or at least explain why McCaskill is helped by pushing the administration to skip her State in 2012.
Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times writes this article about the selection of the 2012 of the Democratic National Convention, which will be held in North Carolina this go round. The White House got to make the final decision as the head of the Party, and chose North Carolina (vs Cleveland, Minneapolis, and St. Louis) as a signal that the Party believes NC is a place where Democrats can make in-roads. And Zeleny makes this point in the second paragraph:
The selection was the White House’s first major strategic decision of the presidential race, and displayed the desire of Democrats to retain some of the states they carried in 2008 for the first time in a generation.
They also note that St. Louis did not get selected because:
The state has slipped out of the Democratic Party's reach in recent presidential elections and it is not expected to be among the top tier of places where Mr. Obama will compete in 2012.
Now the inexplicable happens. Based on "party officials familiar with the selection process," Senator Claire McCaskill--a Democrat representing MO. in the Senate--was privately telling the White House that she did not want the Convention held in MO because "her re-election would be complicated if the convention were held in St. Louis."
What?
Again, what???
Zeleny does not explain precisely how this would complicate her re-election bid. It seems readily apparent that the "party officials" speaking on anonymity were more likely Republican Party officials and not Democrats, because there is no angle to this story where McCaskill is helped by losing the Convention, nor is the administration helped by putting an important ally in danger by going public with such an awful story.
So Mr. Zeleny--who are these sources? Speak up. Or at least explain why McCaskill is helped by pushing the administration to skip her State in 2012.
