NY Times ruins it for Democrats

What's up with The New York Times?

Are there no more military secrets the newspaper can reveal to this country's enemies? No leaks about U.S. intelligence gathering in the war on terror the newspaper can splash across its front page?

The Times, arguably the most liberal newspaper in the United States, has really done it this time.

It reveals to the world (at least the few liberals who still read the newspaper) that Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton are both liberals.

The cat's out of the bag now. Thanks, New York Times for handing the election to Sen. John McCain.

There's a lot of names you can call politicians, but liberal is crossing the line.

Does The New York Times know that most Americans won't vote for a candidate identified as a liberal. It's true. Think John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey. It goes on and on.

But there it is in black-and-white on the pages of the New York Times: "Obama's Test: Can a Liberal Be a Unifier?"

The newspaper says Obama's message of uniting the country flies in the face of his longstanding liberal voting record.

"Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?" the newspaper asks.

The NY Times also takes a shot at Hillary Clinton: "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has worked hard in the Senate to moderate her liberal image and forge working relationships with Republicans. But with her husband’s tumultuous presidency still fresh in some voters’ minds, she is often cast as a hyperpartisan Democrat who would try to achieve her ends by beating the Republicans at the same brutal (and often futile) competition that has dominated Washington for years."

The article goes on to reveal that "A recent analysis of key votes by The National Journal concluded that Mr. Obama had the Senate’s most liberal voting record in 2007; Mrs. Clinton ranked 16th. But of the 267 measures on which both senators voted, the National Journal analysis found that they differed on only 10."

And for all the talk of "change" and ending "politics as usual," the newspaper says that Obama and Clinton are doormats when it comes to voting independently in the Senate: "Congressional Quarterly said Mr. Obama voted with his party 97 percent of the time on party-line votes last year; Mrs. Clinton did so 98 percent of the time."

So there's no real difference between Obama and Clinton ... and both are liberals.

Nice going, New York Times. Your earlier smear job on McCain and that blonde lobbyists (a story criticized by the paper's own public editor) and now the revelation that the Democratic Party is about to nominate another liberal hands the presidential election to the Republicans.