I'd say it's a three for one lie: (1) asserting that all the leading candidates are white, (2) asserting that all the leading candidates are men, and (3) covering up lie #1. Then again, #1 and #2 may have been semi-innocent mistakes, i.e., the Times staff should have know better but didn't actually know they were not true at the time they printed them. The only clear, unambiguous lie is in the cover-up. The rest could have been mere stupidity.
Good point. It IS a three-in-one. As to the possibility that the first two falsehoods could have been innocent. Maybe. But as soon as it is covered up, my policy has been to categorize the whole mess as a lie - (which is also why I grouped all of it under #34 instead of ##34, 35, and 36). I think also that we have to take into account the blogosphere. MSM/DNC knows that it will be outed sooner or later by the blogosphere. We cannot take a correction as a sign of good faith anymore. Merely a sign of fear.
Click on "Homepage" for an example of the "fear" that I referenced in the comment above. Or if that doesn't work, here is the URL:
http://cassandra2004.blogspot.co...ays-
and_03.html
What an irony. The quote in that link is from the same LA Times. The fear doesn't stop them from lying about white men, but it does make them correct the lie in a hurry.
Not only were not all the candidates white men; likely, none of them were. Ironic.
Commenting by HaloScan
