DesertFox
01-06-2008, 04:55 PM
Fighting appears to have broken out between the pro and anti Hillary Clinton factions within the New York Times, with the battle spilling on to the front page of today's print edition over who "went after" whom in last night televised Democratic candidates debate.
One article by Clinton loyalists - headlined "At debate, two rivals go after defiant Clinton" - confidently declared:
Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards went after Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as never before in a televised debate here on Saturday night.
Meanwhile, in the column right next door, Adam Nagourney writes:
In a tense 90-minute debate among the Democrats - marked by bouts of shouting and finger-pointing - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York went after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois aggressively, contending that he had switched his positions on crucial issues, including health care and financing the Iraq war. Mr Obama said she was distorting his record.
Well, I guess this way they let the readers make up their own minds.
Source (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/01/the_nyt_versus_the_nyt.html)
One article by Clinton loyalists - headlined "At debate, two rivals go after defiant Clinton" - confidently declared:
Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards went after Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as never before in a televised debate here on Saturday night.
Meanwhile, in the column right next door, Adam Nagourney writes:
In a tense 90-minute debate among the Democrats - marked by bouts of shouting and finger-pointing - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York went after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois aggressively, contending that he had switched his positions on crucial issues, including health care and financing the Iraq war. Mr Obama said she was distorting his record.
Well, I guess this way they let the readers make up their own minds.
Source (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/01/the_nyt_versus_the_nyt.html)