Why the LA Times sorta super sucks

It’s frustrating to read the battling press releases LA Times. They only do hard journalism in their Column One articles or random series that they do throughout the year. Other than that and Steve Lopez’ articles, it’s a wash. Politics is their weakest point. They give more coverage to the entertainment industry, note The Guide, Image and Calendar sections of the paper.

Today there was an article titled: Obama Favored in Potomac Primaries. There’s nothing that tells us why. In fact, most of the article was about The Clinton’s campaign. The article tells that Obama is ahead poll-wise in Maryland and DC, but it’s really Virginia that counts. We’re told that Obama doesn’t win states that look like America, only Clinton does…even though he’s won more states. And then there is always that something the LA Times prints and you’re left wondering ‘huh?’ and there’s never an explanation. Like this:

Despite those bleak signs, the Clinton camp has quietly mobilized to exploit “some unique opportunities,” said Mo Elleithee, a national Clinton spokesman who was brought in to work on Virginia strategy. (emphasis mine)

What the? What are these “some unique opportunities”? How do they plan to exploit them? And how do you quietly mobilize and with whom?  For polticial geeks like me, who know Mo Elleithee as an attack dog, it’s very curious-making.  I’ve never known him to go after other Democrats in these last 16 years.  I wonder what he has up his sleeve.

The LA Times didn’t ask these questions, so we’re just left wondering.