The venerable New York Times, sometimes referred to as "the Old Gray Lady" of journalism, has endorsed Hillary Clinton in her bid to become the Democratic nominee for President. That same newspaper made that same endorsement eight years ago when Mrs. Clinton wound up getting her clock cleaned by a young, upstart senator from Illinois.
In its rather lengthy endorsement/opinion piece yesterday, the Times also bled a fair amount of ink ridiculing the Republican candidates. One of the choicer barbs read:
" . . . the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world."While heaping praise on Mrs. Clinton, the Times noted her qualifications: she served as senator from a "major" state, was United States Secretary of State, and was on the national stage as First Lady where she served with her "brilliant but flawed" husband, President Bill Clinton.
(I'm not sure what it takes to be considered a "major" state, but obviously I don't live in one. And I spent too many years working with the DSM-IV not to cringe a bit at the combination of "brilliant but flawed." Our prisons and psych wards are full of "brilliant but flawed" individuals.)
So pay attention Iowa as you stumble through the corn stubble heading for the caucuses tomorrow. Those newspaper people out there in New York City think you need to be supporting Hillary - and they're from a "major" state so they must know what's good for you - and for the rest of us. But, on the other hand, if the Old Gray Lady delivers votes with the same efficiency as she delivers newspapers, Hillary is in a bunch of trouble.
And what is it they say about doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result?