NYTimes Jumps the Gun: Does Not Wait For The Votes

The NYTimes jumped the gun:

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.

Um, no. sorry NYTimes, the record breaking 2,000,000 Democratic voters of Pennsylvania decided to not be dictated to by you or any one else when they voted Hillary Clinton to a decisive 10 point, 200,000 vote margin victory. Stop embarrassing yourselves. 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.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Obama's Speech From Indiana | Hillary Wins PA By 10 Points, More Than 200,000 Votes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Sounds like Frank Rich wrote that editorial n/t (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by imhotep on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:33:56 PM EST

    Yeah, I'd like to know (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:46:17 PM EST
    who wrote that crap.

    The same guy who wrote (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:12:26 PM EST

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:34:31 PM EST
    So according to the New York Times any Clinton victory is inconclusive.  That was the logic of that editorial.

    And if it wasn't by 20 points after Obama outspent her at least 2 to 1 and by 4 to 1 on the last weekend along with Obama's shameful 'Democrat for a day" registration drive; it was a loss by gosh.

    Orwell speak from the Fools For Scandal (Gene Lyons). Up is down, winning is losing, war is peace. Negative Obama ads attacking Clinton's UHC plan and all his other filth is positive.

    The Times again demonstrates its intellectual incompetence. The stupid really burns.


    dammit! (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:08:07 AM EST

    beat me to it! :)


    When I did theatre, we had a (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kmblue on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:34:22 PM EST
    saying for bad playwriting
    (i.e. the Times editorial)
    "Who wrote this sh*t?"

    imhotep (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kmblue on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:35:16 PM EST
    great minds :)

    LOL - ours was: 'Some hack named Bill Shakespeare' (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:04:43 PM EST
    ... during rehearsal breaks from 12th Night or Hamlet.

    I also love the (in)famous Hollywood screen credit:

    Additional dialogue by William Shakespeare.


    The Times Editorial board is usually (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:34:36 PM EST
    better than this.

    But you know, this is going to be useless to Obama. The SuperDelegates can count to votes just as well as we can.

    And look at that CNN map of doom (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:37:42 PM EST
    It is very bleak for Obama, to look at that map of counties in Pennsylvania and the margins that Hillary racked up...

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:44:48 PM EST
    Throughout this campaign they've seem way too comfortable going batsh**: "Clinton insulted MLK and must apologize!"  and including in their "endorsement" of her that she needed change the so-called tone of her campaign.  That's not mentioning the great glorification of Obama's "race" speech, which was really about distracting everyone from the Wright problem.

    Honestly, I think they only endorsed Clinton so they can have cover to bash her non-stop in their op-eds and present rather slanted coverage.


    Abrams on MSNBC (none / 0) (#73)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:27:52 AM EST
    he does the same thing

    Obama camp is handing this out to voters (none / 0) (#49)
    by angie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:09:11 PM EST
    my cousin heard that on one of the channels tonight -- that Obama has already printed this up & handed it out to voters -- can anyone confirm?

    HA! (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by heineken1717 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:35:01 PM EST
    The entertainment never ends. Was anyone watching CN8 when Hillary came out to "I Won't Back Down" and this absolute blowhard says, "she's still off message, this is about change, it's not about not backing down, which is why she's going to lose." Hilarious. I guess I expect insanity from some idiot on CN8, but the NY Times? Bring it on, it only emboldens us even more. I'm off to donate on HillaryClinton.com!

    Good for you! (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by lansing quaker on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:36:45 PM EST
    Already tossed her another $25, and am going to see her in East Chicago, IN, on Friday!

    clearly, you haven't been reading (none / 0) (#69)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:10:55 AM EST
    I guess I expect insanity from some idiot on CN8, but the NY Times?

    the nyt's for the past 15 years. this is actually SOP for them.


    I am glad I cancelled my (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:35:04 PM EST
    subscription.  Why are these people so desperate?

    Dateline: Old Fashioned Thumping! (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:38:22 PM EST
    They led in about how big the win was. very big and then went on to "old fashioned thumping"! HA!

    Hey, NYT, we're talking with our money (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:38:53 PM EST
    and the HRC campaign now reports $2.5 million raised tonight since the polls closed -- and all on our own; I didn't even get an email request.

    YES! Polls closed less than 4hrs ago (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:50:44 PM EST
    Damn! Now that's some fund raising!!! And she didn't make her plea until around 10PM.

    Hallelujah to that (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by feet on earth on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:39:04 PM EST
    Going to bed now, singing with KD Lang and Leonard Cohen

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

    Hallelujah, Hallelujah
    Hallelujah, Hallelujah

    All we can do is laugh now (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:40:20 PM EST
    I am starting to think Hillary is completely media-proof.  She will keep getting up and scoring field goals down their throats, no matter how many times they move the goal posts.

    hmm, media proof vs. media darling (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:46:13 PM EST
    sounds like a good way to frame this race. Given that the media is bat sh*t crazy, I'd prefer media proof if it were me. :-)

    yep, how's that darling thing working out? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:52:46 PM EST
    This is how Hillary performs despite being outspent 3-1 and facing a steady drumbeat of bad press and calls for her to drop out.

    Obama can't close the deal despite the media adulation. I am confident this reality is slowly starting to dawn on many people who formerly clinged to the notion he was more electable.


    "Media darling, media bum" (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:19:46 PM EST
    is the way I've always phrased it -- live by the media, die by the media.  It has happened over and over to many a publicity-prone prince dethroned.

    Media-proof is far safer, I'd say.  And what say you to that, BTD?  Probably gonna be cautious again for us . . . but I was so jittery tonight before the polls closed that I get to be a bit giddy now.

    And then back to work tomorrow to get us some Hoosiers!  


    Maybe it's the alcohol talking... (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:55:59 PM EST
    ...but she reminds me of Neo breaking down The Matrix.  For years, we've been desperate for a candidate that could withstand the horrendous anti-Democrat media attacks and it seems we finally have one.  And against McCain!

    I mean, Democrats are always attacked for being too soft, out of touch, and feminine; and she's nixed the first two and her gender will be her trump card if she wins the nomination.  Unbelievable.  What more could we want?  She's it.  She really is.

    And for that reason I will continue to tremble in fear that the Democrats will shoot ourselves in the foot and hand it to Obama.  God, I hope not!  Please!


    Absolutely amazing is our Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by LCaution on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:05:19 AM EST
    As I've said before, if one considers the wall-to-wall negative press Hillary has gotten (is there any TV Network that has said anything nice about her in months? Any magazine? Any major paper's regular coverage), her wins are all the more impressive.  

    Imagine how she would be doing if even one major pub. or network were cheering her on every day!


    inconclusive ?? 200,000 + votes?? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:40:22 PM EST
    voters vote doesn't matter.. they should have endorsed Obama .

    So is she now ahead of the popular vote counting FL/MI?

    Yes, she's ahead!! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jen on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:47:25 PM EST
    O!bama: 14,826,830  47.4%

    Clinton:  14,934,948    47.7%                   

    Clinton +108,118

    Including MI & FL from Real Clear Politics


    That's a big ole (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:21:01 PM EST

    Donna B on Dateline said we needed (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:54:27 PM EST
    to finish the final contests and every vote needs to be counted. I wonder if that includes FL & MI?

    I was too busy picking my jaw off the ground to hear the end of what she said, but she sounded different than the last time I heard her . .


    What I heard between Brazile's lines (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:21:54 PM EST
    is that it's starting to occur to her that to keep her cushy consulting job with the DNC, she might just want to back off from her blatant Obama bias.

    Too late, Donna.  May you not get the chance to walk out on the Dems before you get walked out the door.  And don't let it hit ya. . . .


    great news (none / 0) (#45)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:58:46 PM EST
    Let's hope she's being honest about this.

    I guess the voters (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kmblue on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:41:56 PM EST
    don't read the Boyz.

    I say, "Thank God!"

    Few do. (none / 0) (#26)
    by lansing quaker on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:45:03 PM EST
    Otherwise Lamont would have Crashed the Gates.

    Or Jennifer Granholm who won reelection would have been, as Kos spun it, "the most embattled Democratic incumbent" and lost.


    Really? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:46:20 PM EST
    Kos said that?  She won huge.

    She did. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by lansing quaker on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:51:19 PM EST
    But I commented eagerly and often that the National Blogs were not concerned with State Elections, but just "CONGRESS!!!!"

    Granholm did more for MI than the Fed Congress has, and yet we had no Netroots support.

    He frontpaged often that she was "The Most Embattled" with no donate now links as he gave Lamont every. single. post.  

    After we complained sufficiently with "If you don't care about our gerrymandered House districts, you should care about our Gubernatorial!" he threw one up.

    Then he lumped her into the "Dem Tidal Wave" of governorships after she won.

    I was very involved in that race, and NO one cared on a national level.


    Actually, (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:10:18 PM EST
    I'm a lawyer in MI, and when Granholm was battling it out the MI Trial Lawyers Assoc. held its winter meeting.  Hillary was the speaker for the event.  She asked us to give money to Granholm and gave up a great big chunk of her time to Granholm so Granholm could stump for herself.  That's the only time I've seen Clinton in person and, while I'm disappointed I didn't get to hear a whole speech, I was very impressed that she spent her time working for another Dem.  Especially as HRC was also running for re-election and building her own war chest for the Presidential run.

    So, somebody on the national level cared.  :)


    I have and love a photo of the great (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:31:16 PM EST
    Millie Jeffrey, Medal of Freedom winner (from a certain President Clinton) when she celebrated atGranholm's victory party.  On this "Equal Pay for Equal Work" day (and watch for the bill in Congress tomorrow to restore what workplace protection we had for decades) -- let's remember all the foremothers who fought for us, including in the labor movement.

    Anderson Cooper sez (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:42:23 PM EST
    that Hillary Clinton just raised $2.5M on the net tonight.

    The Times may be stupider than we thought.

    Reverse Psychology? (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:45:49 PM EST
    To help Hillary?

    Well said BTD !! (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:43:02 PM EST
    Stop embarrassing yourselves. It is time for the elites of this country to stop disrespecting the voters.

    This sums up perfectly !!

    meant "sums it up perfectly" (none / 0) (#23)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:43:25 PM EST
    Looks like CYA is in effect at the NYT (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:48:05 PM EST
    editors choice is 3:1 against the premise of the editorial.  Um, what? The folks running the site must be fighting to see who hits the enter key last.

    Just wow (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by AlSmith on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:50:22 PM EST

    I frankly cant believe the tone of the piece.

    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!?

    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.

    cannot be won? (none / 0) (#42)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:56:05 PM EST
    I think by "settle the bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box" they really meant: settle the bloody race before it's settled at the ballot box. Snark.

    Begala just pointed out (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:58:00 PM EST
    that voter turn-out keeps going up and that more and more Republicans are switching their registration to Dem, and that if this was being perceived by the voters as a mean and ugly contest, that just wouldn't be happening.  Good point, I think.

    Elites? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by rangerkeeper on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:02:31 PM EST
    Armando-  If I remember correctly, you are an elite!  Really, so am I, and so are many other Hillary and Obama supporters.  Let's stop putting down people for being excellent.  If you want to say the Times is elitist  (I'd disagree), say that.  I'm so sick of Democrats using elite like it is a slur, like they're Republicans.

    Well it is very elitist to tell voters... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:08:56 PM EST
    what's best for them.  It is something I have never seen Armando doing on this blog.  He says: "let's count the votes."  Apparently that is too much for the New York Times.  They are taking it to a new level of audacity.

    Normally (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Trickster on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:25:44 PM EST
    I'd go along with that sentiment.

    But this piece?  I can just see some guy in a top hat with a monocle and a jauntily-tipped cigarette holder pounding it out on a Royal.


    exactly, lol (none / 0) (#65)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:32:51 PM EST
    Elitism is not a status, it's an attitude (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by xspowr on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:18:27 PM EST
    One's occupation, income, education, and so forth do not determine "elitism" in it's pejorative sense, and as it is directed as a criticism at Obama and his supporters. It is an attitude of condescension towards others (in the current context, usually directed at working class white voters and traditionalist/rural voters) arising from an overinflated sense that one is superior in judgment, knowledge, social status, etc. A number of excellent posts have appeared on the blogs recently about this, but I'm afraid I'm too tired to search for the links. :)

    Not so elite (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by AlSmith on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:23:56 PM EST

    Its all very well and good if you are a heart surgeon or an inventor- a true, measurable elite.

    But if you are just elite by virtue of the fact that you are in a hip media center and all your friends agree that you are just the last word in sophistication, well thats just as empty as the highschool cool kids club.

    Frankly the dumbest guy in from my prep school now works for the Washington Post, so I am supposed to be impressed by the intellect of reporters? No thanks- just tell me the details, I'll come up with my own opinions.  As Emo Phillips once said "I used to think that the brain was the most amazing organ in my body- then I realized what was telling me that".

    I really get the impression that these guys are supporting Obama not so much for his platform as for the message it would send to everybody else. But at some point Obama has to stop being the vessel for everybody to score their own petty points off society with and, you know, actually govern.


    OBAMA is unelectable...In the GE (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Mrwirez on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:10:51 PM EST
    Over 214,000 Popular vote ?
    10% in Pennsylvania......Are you kidding me???
    He only won 5 counties, If not for Philly he would have been TOASTED

    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.....

    Clinton supporter in Pittsburgh,

    I just sent this letter to the public editor (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Raven15 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:16:44 PM EST
    ...of the Times. public@nytimes.com

    I have been appalled by the Times' coverage of the 2008 campaign: Eg., Maureen
    Dowd's unrelenting, juvenile personal attacks on Hillary Clinton and Frank
    Rich's one-note symphony of criticisms of Clinton and hosannahs for Obama. The
    coverage was already unfair before it changed dramatically after the Rev. Wright
    controversy.  Since then, your
    reporters have become Obama apologists and mouthpieces for his campaign. And
    now, finally, your editorial board sees Hillary Clinton as the low-road
    campaigner. This is just absurd. It has been a hard-fought campaign and I don't
    see either candidate as being on any "low" or "high" road. The only way the
    Times and you as public editor will have any credibility is if you own up to
    these problems in your coverage. As it is, my opinion of the Times has been
    altered dramatically for the worse.

    The NYT is a bitter newspaper (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by zyx on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:31:03 PM EST
    that clings to rather wild stories fabricated by its so-called "creative class" writers.  I, uh, don't know why that is.

    if i were a dictator or terrorist, (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:15:11 AM EST
    i'd be real worried about sen. clinton being elected president. unlike the dufus currently occupying the oval office, she actually knows what she's doing.

    today has given me renewed hope for the country.

    This is from Ablog: (none / 0) (#10)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:37:50 PM EST

    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...

    Um, "cuckoo, cuckoo"

    AmericaBlog doesn't speak for me. (none / 0) (#19)
    by lansing quaker on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:41:31 PM EST
    I used to love Aravosis' commentary on gay issues inside and outside of the political sphere, like with Ford Motors.

    He even initially harped on Obama for McClurkin.

    Now it's turned into insanity.  It's pretty sad.  Initially I just despised "Chris in Paris"'s crazy tirades on smoking, but now I look elsewhere for GLBT blogging.

    Aravosis, living in DC, doesn't speak for me.  I guess I should have realized when he basically said the tax stimulus funds were subsidizing the poor over "middle income" urbanites (75K is nothing in DC!!!  That buys you SO MUCH in the podunk areas!!! he mused), but I hung on.

    C'est la vie.


    Appalling. Simply appalling. (nt) (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:23:31 PM EST
    Black and White (none / 0) (#75)
    by daryl herbert on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:54:06 AM EST
    A third party black candidate would get less support than Ron Paul.  But if blacks decide to stay home in significant numbers, that would hurt Sen. Clinton.

    Assuming Sen. Clinton wins the nomination in Denver in August, she will have about nine weeks to convince blacks to get over any hard feelings, and get out the vote.  Bill will have to stop offending blacks.

    Meanwhile McCain will be working to convince them that he's a new kind of Republican, he's not really a racist, and that therefore they don't really need to bother turning out (of course he can't say that outright, and he won't win much of the black vote; the question is how much they will vote, not how).


    uhm... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:31:00 AM EST
    But if blacks decide to stay home in significant numbers, that would hurt Sen. Clinton.

    Are you sure you'll get them to listen to some white, gay guy in DC?

    Maybe Ned Lamont could persuade them.

    (and it floors me, because what most "elites" on the blogs do not grasp is that aa's are not voting against Clinton, they are voting for Obama.  They are the women-hating tools that riddle the blogs these days)


    They should be blaming the voters (none / 0) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:38:37 PM EST
    The voters are the ones keeping the votes split.

    bad writing (none / 0) (#15)
    by pukemoana on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:39:06 PM EST
    but i'm guessing they're referring to the state of the democratic race as inconclusive, i.e. PA results don't clearly determine whether Clinton or Obama is the frontrunner.  or maybe i've spent too many years trying to make sentences in undergrad essays coherent and am now transferring that to the ny times

    Um no (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:39:36 PM EST
    they believed the exit polls.

    They should have listened to us (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:43:36 PM EST
    The women did turn out at 60% (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:56:27 PM EST
    I think in a general election she will be able to pull away some Republican women from McCain, not to mention Hispanics.

    I am feeling good about my predictions this primary season.  Here's another one: Hillary gets the nomination.


    I want to see (none / 0) (#71)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:30:50 AM EST
    if they will have the integrity to acknowledge it and correct themselves.  

    Um yes (none / 0) (#74)
    by muffie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:34:20 AM EST
    Otherwise why would the put the modifier "yet another" in front of inconclusive?  In other words, the reading should be that none of the statewide contests thus far has led to a final conclusion of the Democratic primary.

    It's poor word choice, but it's nothing to get quite so worked up over.


    I can't believe they will leave this editorial up (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:47:00 PM EST
    In case they don't, here it is in all its inaccuracies:

    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.

    itchy fingers (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:50:09 PM EST
    looks to me like someone had this puppy prepped and ready to go the second they thought they could use it. And it turns out, pulled the trigger a little too quickly. Hey NYTimes, integrity much. :-)

    What are they talking about? It is Obama who does (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:19:54 PM EST
    not engage on the issues. And, when he attempts to, he's clearly not well-informed and is often incoherent. Who do they think they're kidding? It is so apparent that she can take him to task on the issues any day.

    And, why haven't they addressed the serious problem of blatant sexism that is alive and well in our country today? I've worked too hard in the past confronting and personally dealing with  sexist issues to have to put up with this kind of bs now!!

    Thanks for putting this up Jeralyn. I'll go check my blood pressure now. ;-)


    Well, she's winning over the larger body of (none / 0) (#38)
    by Teresa on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:52:46 PM EST
    voters lately, it seems. Two of the three states, Ohio and PA are pretty critical to our chances.

    What an awful editorial. She does try to engage him on substance. He has none, or very little.


    Clinton's perfect response (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:37:40 AM EST
    to her getting slammed and Obama getting popped on the nose:

    "I grew up with two brothers.  I'm used to getting in trouble more than them for doing the exact same thing.  Now,  let me tell you about my healthplan..."

    (and I would like to point out that Clinton would be more than willing to debate issues with Obama, only he ran away from another debate with his tail between his legs)


    Who cares about math (none / 0) (#72)
    by Logy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:11:30 AM EST
    Hillary won Pennsylvania.  Of course what nobody seems to mention is that Hillary's big wins in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas gained her about the same number of delegates as Obama's small wins in Hawaii, Washington DC and the Virgin Islands.  Wait a second, besides Hawaii, are those even states?  

    The cynics among you will point out that we can't count Hawaii because it is Obama's home state.  So to be fair let's add Hillary's home state (she has so many how can you pick just one) of Illinois.  Wait a second, maybe she would rather we not count Illinois.

    She (none / 0) (#76)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:09:02 AM EST
    would rather all votes in all states count. As we all, being progressives, would.

    I don't remember anyone here saying any state didn't count. I do remember them saying that some of the Red States that Obama won would not be going in the "D" column in a general election.


    What (none / 0) (#77)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:06:03 AM EST
    Of course what nobody seems to mention is that Hillary's big wins in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas gained her about the same number of delegates as Obama's small wins in Hawaii, Washington DC and the Virgin Islands.

    tells me is that the DNC has a screwed up way of deciding who gets the delegates.  Specially when you take into account the 'twilight zone" ways like Texas and caucus states.


    What exactly (none / 0) (#78)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:22:02 AM EST
    was conclusive about last night's win?  

    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.

    The New York Times has been a steady supporter of Hillary.  The fact that they are criticizing her tactics should tell you something.  Instead you guys attack the New York Times as being biased in favor of Obama.  Unbelievable.

    Heh (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:34:29 AM EST
    You are a trip.

    So writing an "inconclusive result" does not suggest it was an "inconclusive result?"

    You are a trip.


    I realize (none / 0) (#83)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:41:03 AM EST
    that the NYT editorial board are not idiots and they realize that Hillary was certain to win PA.  Since every race, on it's own, has been conclusive I don't why they would think this would be any different.

    So clearly they were not referring to PA when they said inconclusive, unless you do believe that they are idiots.  

    The most likely inference is that they were referring to the overall race for the nomination which is STILL inconclusive even after Hillary's win.  Or are you proposing that Hillary is the presumptive nominee now?


    Look (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:50:26 AM EST
    you can dance away from my comment as you should because what you first wrote was absurd.

    The Times expected a 4 point win based on the exit polls. that si why they wrote what they wrote.

    Of course they look like fools now as they should look.


    Whatever you say (none / 0) (#85)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:37:10 AM EST
    You are making assumptions in order to attack the New York Times, which has been largely favorable to Hillary.

    For crissakes (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:35:35 AM EST
    You are just being foolish now. you know that is what they did and I know it.

    what about the fact (none / 0) (#81)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:36:00 AM EST
    that they also attacked Obama for being petty and juvenile and basically showing his age?

    Where did they (none / 0) (#86)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:49:31 AM EST
    say he was being juvenile? Or are you editorializing?

    Regardless it doesn't much bother me if they did.  I don't get worked up over the media.  


    correction: (none / 0) (#88)
    by Pieter B on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:29:47 PM EST
    NYTimes Jumps the Gun: Does Not Wait For The Votes

    You misspelled "Shark."

    "Stop embarrassing yourselves"!!! (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimiayler on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:05:37 PM EST
    try that on a mirror, BigTent!!! if the following is the standard you wish the nytimes, the democratic party and all right(left)-thinking americans would approach:

    "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?

    gosh, i don't know, BigTent, it's so hard to keep track of the rationales here! i realize, absent agreed-upon results, you feel we should get rid of obama, despite the fact he will be the clear leader going into the convention by every agreed-to metric. could you maybe ask the clinton campaign to please stop disrespecting the voters and respect the will of the people? please? thanks in advance!

    'decisive' v. 'inconclusive' - wrt what?? (none / 0) (#91)
    by low tech cyclist on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:40:51 PM EST
    Sorry for jumping in WAY late, but I just saw Wolcott's link to this.  And since I've had trouble understanding the frequent use of 'decisive' as applied to last week's primary, I hope you don't mind if I jump in:

    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.

    So IMHO, the NY Times is right: PA was inconclusive.  It didn't bring Obama much closer to clinching the win, and it didn't bring Hillary much closer to catching up to Obama.  That's about as inconclusive as inconclusive can be.