And finds an endorsement for Barack Obama.
A day after watching its stock tank and reporting third quarter losses that would embarrass the Detroit Lions, the New York Times went ahead and formalized its Obamafication.
The endorsement is so full of pandering lefty hyperbole that one wonders if they aren't in secret negotiations to have Hugo Chavez nationalize the paper.
Look at some of the garbage from Pravda on the Hudson contained in this article.
Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change. He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation’s problems.
What challenges has this guy faced? That one reporter who wouldn't lie for him? Those twelve times he actually had to show up in the Senate and vote on something? Obama has led the most charmed political life in history. He continually makes bad decisions and forms alliances with people who would be an embarrassment to most back alley crack dealers. When any of these decisions or alliances come to light, under the bus they go. The MSM doesn't ever ask questions about the ever growing population under the bus. They all just stand around saying, "What bus?"
In the same time, Senator John McCain of Arizona has retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics, running a campaign on partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism. His policies and worldview are mired in the past. His choice of a running mate so evidently unfit for the office was a final act of opportunism and bad judgment that eclipsed the accomplishments of 26 years in Congress.
Sure, John McCain is on the fringe of politics. In Cuba. In North Korea. In Venezuela. And thanks for that Race Card. Hadn't seen one dealt in almost four minutes. At what point do unsubstantiated charges of racism become libelous?
Given the particularly ugly nature of Mr. McCain’s campaign, the urge to choose on the basis of raw emotion is strong. But there is a greater value in looking closely at the facts of life in America today and at the prescriptions the candidates offer. The differences are profound.
It's easy to see from the way it's all been prefaced that the facts will get a fair looking at, right?
I won't even quote any more here. If you've heard a Barack Obama talking points list, you already know everything that's in the rest of the endorsement.
That the Times is endorsing Obama isn't surprising. What is astonishing is how unhinged the endorsement is. That it comes on the heels of the piss-poor earnings announcement is the real story of this rag.
There is a simple reason that the New York Times is still considered "the newspaper of record" but can't earn as much money as a part time employee at Hot Dog On A Stick: everyone who works there is out of his or her freakin' mind.
It's a newspaper with a national reach but an influence that's largely confined to a small area of Manhattan. The entire company is being eaten alive by a hubris fueled ignorance that makes its editors almost completely unaware of what actually goes on in America.
They're so stupid that no one there will ever understand the connection between the in-the-sewer profits and the latter-day hippie commentary in the Obama endorsement. It's the short bus of newspaper editorial boards.
My guess is that the real reason its editors have affixed their lips to Obama's ass is that they are all hoping for a government bailout once that last dollar is spent on Chai tea and retouching Maureen Dowd's headshots to make her look like she's from this century.
The Times can have Obama. If he wins, it will be a race to see which one of them implodes first.