Media Bias Watch: New York Times PR Piece on Teddy!

It did not take long for Liberal newsletter The New York Times to have a reporter stump for Ted Kennedy's "I Loev Obama" tour. While most of America already knows how out-of-touch this career politician is, The Times continues to try and convince us otherwise -- simply because of his last name and his ability to con young idealists into beliving his hollow words.

It is easy, however, to be considered "hip" again in Liberal circles by grabbing the coattails of the latest "falvour de jour," like Obama is (at least until after Super Tuesday). While Times writer Mark Liebovich was gushing over Kennedy, he failed to ask the question on the minds of those who know of his work: "What is his angle?"

As I had written in a previous post, if Obama keeps preaching about "change' in Washington, why would the man who represents the most self-absorbed and despicable aspects of today's political culture want to side with him? The best answers I could come up with are:

Obama is just blowing smoke about change because he had not yet come up with any udeas anyway.
In an America where Ted Kennedy is becoming increasingly more irrelevant, he needs a spotlight and some fanfare from friends in the media to stroke his ego.
Kennedy has something against one or more of the Clintons.

I would suggest a combination of all three, but the latter provokes some interest. While the RFK kids are siding with Hillary Clinton and could be a big help in her inevitable nomination, Ted spent the past few days railing against her. This blogger says it was likely beacuse of her praise for President Lyndon Johnson's work on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 without mentioning Kennedy. As an overgrown spoiled child, this is likely. Also, in Liberal circles, the Clinton name has become virtual royalty in the way the Kennedy name has enamoured the Leftist establishment for years. This might make little Teddy jealous, as he (unlike the rest of the family) has become less relevant in the Democratic party's future. I would go as far to say that Ted Kennedy's disdain for women, considering his past treatment of them, could be a factor. While gender should have no place in this discussion, Kennedy's philandering and other issues with women are well-known, but well-forgiven amongst Liberal special interest groups who think The Tedster owes them for their continued blind eye.

Clearly, the Democrats have spoken in their primary: they prefer to play the politivs of gender and race, hoping it can work in the general election against the Republican nominee's own establishment candidate. Such political strategy may have worked in the 1990s, but Liberals will find out soon that this kind of ploy has less effect than it did in the Bill Clinton era.