I must have missed this. How could that happen, readers?
If I'm going to be on the web, I'd rather look at good blogs than garbage MSM propaganda.
"
Hillary Clinton may have saved her presidential bid with her big win in Pennsylvania, but she also drew a rebuke from her home-state newspaper - which also happens to set the political agenda for much of the media - for how she conducted her campaign.
No kidding?
Pffffffffftttttt!!!!!!
The New York Times, which had endorsed Clinton over Barack Obama, slammed her yesterday in an editorial: "It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election."
WTF, readers, WTF?!?!
Like they didn't know what they were getting?!?
Fucked this up like you did Iraq, 'eh, Times?
Why I no longer like to bother with MSM shit political fooleys!!!!
The Times specifically cited a last-minute Clinton TV ad that featured images of Osama bin Laden and suggested that only she - not Obama - was tough enough to handle crises as president. "On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11" the editorial said (Boston Globe April 24, 2008)."
Oh, that's why I missed it; I really don't care to give my time (or a rat's ass, for that matter) to a New York Times editorial.
That's like sticking your nose in shit with no assistance.
Been way out in front of you on this one, Times.
So WhereTF you been?
:-(
