Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania by 10 points, earning the wrath 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.
Can you imagine how vicious the editorial might have been had the Times not endorsed Clinton? How could the country's "paper of record" be shocked -- shocked! -- that Hillary Clinton went ruthlessly negative? Well, because it has people who think like this:
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.
Yes, indeedy. Essential values and sensible policy prescriptions.