The goo is spewing forth from The New York Times. Gov. Andrew Cuomo's coronavirus briefings -- "His briefings — articulate, consistent and often tinged with empathy — have become must-see television." They're described as "communal therapy sessions," as Cuomo finds "a poetic, almost sentimental streak amid the dark news."



In the aftermath of the fiery Democratic debate in Las Vegas, the New York Times queened Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s return to form, but provided a chillier reception to Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Friday’s piece, “Facing a Potential Last Stand, Warren Unleashes Rhetorical Howitzers,” played Warren’s attacks on debate newbie Michael Bloomberg dramatically, with her as vanquishing hero. But the paper insulted "largely white" editorial boards for daring to endorse the supposedly "centrist" Sen. Amy Klobuchar.



On the front page of Saturday’s New York Times, reporter Lisa Lerer wondered why so many women were reluctant to vote for a woman (i.e. Elizabeth Warren) to run for president in “Taking Feminism to Heart, if Not to the Caucuses – Beating Trump Matters More Than Electing a Woman, to Some.” As is often the case, unfettered abortion rights was a priority: "Ms. Schlenker has seen how the current political moment has convinced her daughter that her rights could be taken away, and that sexism remains a force in both of their lives."



Reporter Shane Goldmacher had some hard-hitting news from the Sen. Elizabeth Warren campaign trial that made the front of Saturday’s New York Times. Her poll struggles as the voting public rejects her far-left plans to re-make health care and business? Not quite: “She Has a Plan For Telephoning Early and Often.” (That’s an affectionate take-off on Warren’s assurances of “having a plan” for everything.) The online headline deck: “‘Call Me Elizabeth’: Inside the Hours Elizabeth Warren Spends on the Phone -- She makes time to talk to kids, celebrities and state legislators. She’s not asking for money. She just wants to say hello -- and to court good will.



The front of Thursday’s New York Times followed up on the unceremonious ouster of Planned Parenthood president Leana Wen, after just eight months on the job leading the country’ largest abortionist, in a fight over the group’s direction during a time of pro-abortion laws under pressure: “Health Provider or an Advocate? Planned Parenthood’s Quandary.” But an “advocate” for what? The headline lacked the word “abortion,” which is certainly the organization’s raison d’etre. The media have spent years laughably insisting Planned Parenthood is more than an abortion megaplex, and now the organization with one move has contradicted all that cozy public relations by firing their president for insufficient focus on abortion.



On the front page of Sunday’s edition, New York Times reporter Shane Goldmacher propped up leading Democratic candidate Joe Biden as an old-fashioned guy who might be too bipartisan and nice to fit the angry anti-Trump Democratic mood: “Democrats Split Over Targeting Trump or Party.” But is Biden really a nice-guy “moderate”? The evidence, suppressed by Goldmacher suggests Biden is just an old-fashioned Democratic attack dog, a role he played to perfection a Obama’s running mate.



The New York Times penned an earnest hymn to the Democrats’ latest feminist presidential hope, the newly “progressive” heroine Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. Shane Goldmacher, recently of Politico, and Matt Flegenheimer, a familiar byline at NewsBusters, launched Gillibrand’s potential 2020 campaign (joining previous Times feminist presidential hopefuls, Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Elizabeth Warren) from the front of the Sunday National section, under the large-type, incredibly sycophantic headline “Senator’s Star Shines as Nation Unites Behind Her Cause -- Gillibrand, Long a Champion of Women, Stays Out Front in a Cultural Reckoning.” Keep in mind that’s a headline in the paper’s News section.



Well, here's some polling data you can expect MSNBC -- which obsesses over the so-called war on women -- to censor from their air.

As the National Journal reported today (emphases mine), "the latest United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll shows that a plurality of Americans supports a ban on late abortions," that "women supported such a measure in greater numbers than men (50 percent of women in favor; 46 percent of men)," and that both young voters and white women -- two Obama-favoring voting demographics -- favor such bans by a simple majority: