Dewey Once Again Beats Truman
Not really, but I'm just helping out the editorial board of the New York Times, whose elitist contempt for journalism and democracy couldn't be more evident as they wrote the following nonsense last night even before all the voting results had been tallied (comments are from Big Tent Democrat last night, emphasis mine, throughout this post):
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.
For a newspaper that is very much into fake news, having fabricated one fake scandal after another about the Clintons in the 1990s and then acting as George Bush's servants for many years, this must be their crowning glory for this election campaign, especially considering that the editorial has the usual set of recycled lies about the campaign and about who has been more negative.
Another faker and nutjob seemed a bit out of his element, as Todd Beeton recounts at MyDD:
I have to say I was amused to hear Keith Olbermann announce with child-like glee at 8:01pm that the race was too close to call and how that had to make the Clinton campaign nervous.
Seriously, at what point are these guys going to start holding their own candidate accountable for why this thing is still going on instead of complaining that Hillary is competing in contests that she is winning.
P.S. I was going to mention this yesterday but never got around to it. The talking point about Sen. Clinton having dropped from a 20-point lead is nonsense - it is based on cherry picking one or two polls to spin the embarrassing loss in favor of Sen. Obama, who blew a huge and unprecedented amount on money on the PA race and had numerous other things going in his favor. In fact, if you look at the list of PA polls at Pollster.com, the average Clinton lead was roughly ~10% in February, ~12% in March and ~7% in April. I just noticed Jerome Armstrong wrote about the same aspect - using a different poll or polls source - yesterday. At least you can be happy that I didn't pick the PPP poll that had Sen. Obama leading by 3% and use that to claim that he should therefore withdraw from the race after yesterday's result.