NY Times doubles down on beclowning

In case there was ever any doubt, the reason Obama has been able to get away with outrageous lies is that he can always depend on media outlets like the New York Times to protect their guy.  In the wake of a general pushback on their boot-licking editorial in defense of Obama, the Gray Lady's Public Editor had to address the issue: "Editorial is under fire for saying President "clearly mispoke" on health care."

On Monday, I asked the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, about the wording.
“We have a high threshold for whether someone lied,” he told me. The phrase that The Times used “means that he said something that wasn’t true.” Saying the president lied would have meant something different, Mr. Rosenthal said — that he knew it was false and intended to express the falsehood. “We don’t know that,” he said.

Emphasis mine.  The editorial in question appeared in the November 3rd edition.  A week earlier, NBC News ran this story: "Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance."  And only a day before, the Wall Street Journal ran an extensive story "Aides debated Obama health-care coverage promise" in which "political aides" decided it would be better to deliberately deceive Americans about whether they could keep their health plan.  The only explanation the Times could adopt to explain their position is that the Smartest President Ever didn't understand his own legislation, his own aides kept him in the dark, and he just mouthed the words that appeared on his teleprompter.

Hmmm...on second thought.