Prelude:
***Meet the Press transcript of Powell’s words:

"She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired," he said. "But at the same, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Sen. McCain made."

Compare to how the NYTimes paraphrased Powell:
Palin is “not fit to be vice president.”
--------------------------
Once upon a time there was a great newspaper that published all the news that’s fit to print. What a fond memory. This past quarter, the Times’ profits fell by 51%. Psst Times are you listening Yet?????
Readers want you to REPORT Fairly and boot sexism from you coverage.
Below are two simple examples of why readers are fuming.

Monday Oct. 20th, 2008 the Times felt the need to give two front page columns to Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama. Now if that endorsement had been a surprise of any real sort then it would have earned a front page mention—one story, not two. But Powell was so widely expected to endorse Obama that a story below the fold or even inside the paper would normally be the norm. But the Times they is a Changn’ ….

Why two Powell mentions?? Why this story: “Endorsement Puts Spotlight On a Legacy, Powell’s Nod Personal as well as Political” smack dab next to this story: “Donation Record as Colin Powell Endorses Obama”???
Both stories above the fold.
A head-scratcher for an unbiased editor. Two?? For Precious Front Page Space?? Two?? Why Two??
Here’s the answer:
The Times used Powell’s luvn’ on Obama to report on Obama’s $150 collected in September, rather than do an all the news that’s fit to print on the clouds of donor fraud that loom large over the Obama Money Machine.
(*see link to Donor Fraud below)

Not a mention was made by the Times over worries that much of Obama’s Money Machine has not been vetted, that small donors are not vetted even after serious fraud has been uncovered, or what portion of $200 million small donor $s came from U.S. Citizens (McCain and Clinton took simple measures to ensure their donations were legit), how the Obama Money Machine has done nothing to ensure that those who donate to his campaign are citizens of this country and why Obama has not used the same common authorization practices online retailers use to verify the identity of the purchaser. Not a mention of the FEC’s ongoing investigation of donor fraud and Camp Obama. Not a mention. Where’s the Beef, wonders a curious nation. Why the silence, wonders a curious nation.

So what DID the Times mention in that $150 collected by Obama story? This darling nugget: “Mr. Powell said he was dismayed by the tenor of the campaign, declaring that McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin , was NOT FIT to be vice president…”

Whoa—this was to be a story on $150 million raised by Obama, but sneaking Powell in gave the Times a way to belittle Palin w/o a mention of donor fraud charges leveled at Camp Obama by legitimate sources.
Insult to injury….also this:
Not once did either story that Headlined Powell’s endorsement of Obama quote Powell’s actual words about Palin—that she is a distinguished woman and should be admired, but that he feels she is not ready to be President of the United States. Rather than use a single positive word about Palin, the Times’s wrote that Palin is “not fit to be vice president,” choosing to paraphrase what Powell said in order to write those words—not fit to be veep.

Femisex has written about Powell’s nasty cowardice re hiding behind Palin’s skirts as a justification for an endorsement that was in the bank months and months ago; we won’t return there today.

But by choosing to go as negative as they possibly could get away with re Powell’s Palin quote, the Times is simply positioning itself as a newspaper that can’t be trusted to paraphrase items that concern women candidates for high office without inserting severe bias.
Never underestimate how important it is in journalism to get the paraphrase correct. This is a matter of high trust btw the reader and the publication. Trust in the Times’ ability to report on female high-office candidates without inserting massive sexist bent is shattered.
NOT FIT.

Just another nail in the Times coffin. And you know, for the 1st time in my life, I’m thinking that may just be what the doctor ordered in order for any woman to gain High Office in this country. Where the Times leads the little guys follow; if White Bitch jokes about Hillary are OK with the Times, then the thinking goes, it must be OK in our humble paper. IF the Times can run sexist cartoons, words, and columns then so can we, goes the thinking.
Perhaps if the Times is brought low by falling profits and consumer disgust it will be constrained from pumping out sexist prose against both Blue and Red women running for high office, then …. ladies perhaps we’ll all be better off if the GRAY OLD LADY goes to the nursing home some MUCH NEEDED rehabilitation!

Related Links:
From Time: Powell's Endorsement: Months in the Making
By MICHAEL DUFFY
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1851966,00.html?iid=fb_...
-------------------------
More on Powell’s disingenuous endorsement :
http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/polldancing/?p=3144

From Femisex:
For Colin Powell Race Beats Party. Fine. But Hiding behind Palin's Skirt to Justify that position is a Caitiff, Craven, Cowardly Act.
http://www.femisex.com/content/for-colin-powell-race-beats-party-fine-bu...

Must Read: Obama donor Fraud:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10272008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dubious_...