My opinion is that they wanted the ad's and the plugs from talking heads on TV.  However, in the process they are clearly sidetracking campaign discussion.  Sacrificing journalism for profits.

I don't want to even get into the dishonesty and revisionism of the "clinton is most negative" editorial.  That's a problem in and of itself, but the NYTimes has made some huge mistakes this year.

From their sloppy blogging (that gets massive comments and corrections) to the 3 AM - KKK comparison on the day of the Mississippi primary, they have engaged in last-minute hits to undercut campaign support.  And not even real exposes, but by shoddy punditry.

I am very troubled by this. First, there is clearly no consideration of the possibility that HRC supporters might legitimately feel the same way -- women, Hispanic voters, etc. They wouldn't be uspet? Now of course this discussion was premised on the assumption that Barack would be ahead on every single metric going into June - popular votes, delegates, states won, etc. So perhaps, given that scenario, you could make an argument that Barack was actually "winning." But still, the notion that only HIS voters would be angry was amazing to me.

It also got me thinking about what the speaker was suggesting about his voters. Clearly, his message (to me) was an attempt to scare the SD's with images of angry youth and AA voters. That really bothers me. Are we to presume that these folks lack the capacity to understand an electability decision by the SD's? I found this comment vaguely insulting to Barack's voters, personally.

I just want to say how struck I am by the difference between the Hillary and Obama blogs. The Hillary supporters seem to be so much more... what's the word? Reasonable. That's it. Motivated by reason, while the Obama folks seem to be driven by emotion, approaching hysteria a lot of the time.

What's striking here, as in other states, is that Obama is getting killed on the margins in the rural counties, with Clinton taking as much as 75% of the vote in rural counties in the center and the southwest of the state. Obama in the primary -- and a Democrat in the general -- doesn't actually need to carry places like that. But margins that wide are deadly.

http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/

Hillary Rediscovered...

In the fall of 1992 I was a school media specialist and my best buddy was a Social Studies teacher. We were around the same age and utterly sick and tired of the Reagan-Bush I era. I was particularly angered and depressed by the constant anti-abortion message being shoved down our throats and had marched on Washington twice over abortion rights during these years. It felt like women were under constant attack.

So when Bill Clinton hit the scene, Kathy and I became big fans. We weren't policy wonks at that point-we were just looking for some oxygen and Bill Clinton was it. One of my favorite expressions at the time was that Clinton "had a PULSE" and after years of ossification at the hands of Reagan-Bush I, that meant a great deal to us!

Around the time the fall was still warm and sunny, Hillary Clinton came to the Rutgers University campus on College Avenue, in New Brunswick, NJ. Kathy and I decided we simply HAD to go!

It was a beautiful day and a platform was set up as one entered the quad. I don't recall the crowd being exceptionally large, nor do I remember a word that was said. But I do remember Hillary. She was wearing a bright purple skirt suit and her hair was fairly long. After she spoke, she came down the rope line and I shook her hand. What struck me was that she was very petite. And her skin-very fair and almost translucent. She looked almost fragile.

Hers was great.  His, mediocre.

Texas and Ohio ended the the Obama campaign narrative. Pennsylvania ends the Obama nomination narrative. The Clinton campaign has to flip the script on counting Florida and Michigan. Tomorrow, her media people should begin speaking exclusively as if Florida and Michigan will be seated fully. That way, it is absolutely clear that Obama only wins the nomination by a procedural maneuver by insider operatives (Donna Donna Donna) who act to exclude other Democrats from pledging their delegates at the national convention.