Progressive panic

Hillary's hard-fought double-digit victory in Pennsylvania produces panic on the editorial page of the New York Times:

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.

An "inconclusive result"? Man, she clobbered Obama but good! And where is the evidence that "voters are getting tired of it"? I twice traveled to Pennsylvania to cover Hillary's campaign rallies. She had 'em waiting in line to get inside, and her supporters were ecstatically enthusiastic.

What the New York Times clearly means when it says "voters are getting tired of it" is that the New York Times is getting tired of it.

Where do those assclowns at the New York Times get the idea that Hillary is "mostly responsible" for the "negativity" in the race? Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-American rants -- that's not "negativity"? Obama dissing small-town America as a bunch of bitter yahoos -- that's not "negativity"?

All this editorial does is to confirm what we already know: The editors of the New York Times are a bunch of "progressive" Democrats who, like progressive Democrats everywhere, have been cheerleading for Barack Obama ever since he declared his candidacy. Hillary beat Obama and they don't like it, and so they're dumping all over her.

But just you wait: If Hillary somehow hangs in there and actually wins the nomination, the New York Times will jump up in her lap like a friendly puppy, and at that point, anyone who criticizes her then -- once she's the Democratic presidential nominee -- will be accused of mean-spirited hateful sexism.