She tied you
To a kitchen chair
She broke your throne, and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew Hallelujah

Stop embarrassing yourselves. It is time for the elites of this country to stop disrespecting the voters.

Everything that they thought was "vacuous" was actually important. A flag pin is something the candidate can 100% control and reflects their core beliefs. Lets face it, as much as the Times would like to hear a discussion of Social Security and Health Care, odds are nothing is going to be done about those issues. A bunch of feel good promises about those issues really would be pandering.

This really is the topper. If Clinton continues to win by pointing out all the obvious holes in Obama, well then they'll just have to stop the fight. What is this- Clay/Liston!?

OK all Super Delegates........... FREEZE!!

I will give Obama credit his is likable......ENOUGH
Just not Electable.......... enough

There is NO-Way you can lose CA,NY,NJ,OH,PA,TX,MI,FL, and MASS with Kennedy, Kerry AND the Governor by 15% THEN, beat John McCain. If these super delegates nominates BHO.... McCain skips in doing the TEXAS two step.....

I'm waiting for the Black caucus to give her an ultimatum:

If she doesn't bow out now, gracefully, she will face a third party black stalking horse candidate in every election she will ever face, be it President, Senator, Governor, Dog Catcher, whatever...

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad -- torn right from Karl Rove's playbook -- evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," the narrator intoned.

If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton's argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: "We would be able to totally obliterate them."

By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don't like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton's bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about "bitter" voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.

No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think, it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and they are doing their best to make voters forget it. And if they think that only Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they're wrong.

After seven years of George W. Bush's failed with-us-or-against-us presidency, all American voters deserve to hear a nuanced debate -- right now and through the general campaign -- about how each candidate will combat terrorism, protect civil liberties, address the housing crisis and end the war in Iraq.

It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.

The editorial wasn't suggesting that her win in PA was inconclusive.  It was suggesting that her win in PA was inconclusive towards the overall will of the Democratic Party.  

She held serve in PA.  She needed a sizable win to stay in the race.  She got it.  How is this race anymore decided today than it was yesterday.

NYTimes Jumps the Gun: Does Not Wait For The Votes

"It is time for the elites of this country to stop disrespecting the voters. Let the voters vote. It is their right. Respect the will of the people please."

well, since you asked so nicely -- done. obama has the most votes. he wins. thanks for making this easy!

OH! but now hillary is saying SHE has the most popular votes. huh! OH! but now she's including the votes taken from michigan, where obama wasn't even on the ballot, AND where she said the election results should not be counted...huh! should i believe her now, or then? when should hillary be counted as trustworthy?

Hillary's win by 9.3% in Pennsylvania was certainly decisive with respect to Pennsylvania.  No argument there.

But unless you're a Pennsylvanian, you're probably more interested in whether it was decisive or inconclusive with respect to the race for the nomination.

And with respect to that, the NYT is right - Hillary's PA win was inconclusive.

She won by a comfortable margin, but not by so much that it brought her closer to winning.  In fact, she needs to do better among the remaining pledged delegates and uncommitted superdelegates than she did before this past Tuesday.  

Against that, one can consider the intangible (but nontrivial) benefits of how that win is treated in the media and perceived by the voters.  But since there aren't that many voters left, that effect is limited.