Washington Post does not believe Hillary has crossed the line. Plus she should stay in the race

[anselmo]

In an editorial today, The Washington Post agrees with the majority of Democrats in the nation who want the race to move on with Hillary in it. They also tell us the following:

Ms. Clinton cannot rack up enough votes in the seven contests remaining to overtake him. So does that mean that she ought to quietly fade away? Is she serving only to tarnish Mr. Obama and help Republicans win in November? Have the Democrats -- Ms. Clinton in particular -- crossed the line from appropriately tough to unacceptably ugly campaigning?

Excuse us if we don't join in the general hand-wringing, but our answer to all three questions is no. This is a contest between two formidable candidates, each of whom has proven appeal to millions of voters. The party rules provide for primaries through early June. Why should voters in those states be told, "Never mind"? The lengthy primary contest may not be in the best interest of the Democratic Party, which would rather be gearing up for November, but it has served to clarify the two candidates' strengths and weaknesses -- matters that would come to the fore in the general election anyway. Thanks to the continuing race, Democrats can assess now the impact of Mr. Obama's relationship with his former pastor or his comments about "bitter" working-class voters; likewise, they can take into account Ms. Clinton's rising unfavorability ratings. Democrats can look at the clear demographic divide between the two contenders -- Mr. Obama does better among affluent, better-educated voters; he lags among lower-earning whites, especially men and Catholics -- and decide whether that affects their assessment of the party's chances in November. Information now is better than information later.

Read entire editorial:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042303073.html
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/04/22/national-poll-regardless-of-pa-outcome-clinton-should-stay-in-race/

[haymakeragain]

1. How does she win?

Just like to hear the play by play of how Clinton takes this primary.

[Benhurst]

10. She will win the same way Obama will, by being dragged over the

finish line by the unelected super delegates. Neither will be able to secure the necessary 2025 elected delegates at this point to lay claim to the nomination without help from the powers that be.

[Avalux]

Hillary's campaign is just like the Iraq War. Impossible to win, but keeps going and going.....

:rofl:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

2. Media - "its making us money, we don't give a shit about the country"

its all about the $$$$

The media helped Bush sell the war, now they can profit off of
media buys from candidate from this never ending primary.

Its the goose that laid the golden egg and there's nothing to stop them from lying.

The media is our biggest handicap, and the sooner these newspapers and tv talking heads
go out of business, the better.

Let the Bloggers rule.

[gabeana]

3. I have a hard time of listening to WAPO

since their great insight into our Iraq fiasco, they were cheer leaders for it, so now they are going to cheer lead for another disaster

[BeyondGeography]

4. One-third of her money comes from Washington

WAPO is reassured.

[Faygo Kid]

5. The same Washington Post that is the ultimate cheerleader for the war? And the one with Iran?

The Washington Post is now a right wing, neocon rag that features (drum roll, please), Robert Novak, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Gerson and assorted other neocon misfits as "commentators." The Washington Post is only disappointed that the New York Times beat 'em to the punch to sign up William Kristol?

That Washington Post?

Save your breath. They are going to endorse McCain. He wants war. So do they.

Cartoonist Tom Toles is the best thing about The Washington Post.

[terranova]

7. The NY Times, whose Judy Miller, Michael Gordon and "curveball" got us into war, blasted Hillary

And you loved it. Want to know how many recommendations the thread about their editorial got?
Let's not be hypocrites. Even the worse newspaper would be cheered here if they said something nice about Obama.

[Faygo Kid]

12. One post. Welcome back. You don't know what the hell I think.

Don't be presumptuous. My contempt for The Washington Post goes back to 2002, when they literally salivated blood about the prospect of war.

And I don't recall that I even knew who Barack Obama was at that time. So don't call me "hypocrite," pal. Whoever you really are.

[AtomicKitten]

6. Skinner believes you crossed the line and has served you your pizza.

[Benhurst]

11. The Washington Post is hardly one of my favorite newspapers;

but since when does posting an article from it get one tombstoned?

:shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

13. maybe it had nothing to do with the link

[Benhurst]

16. I think you are right. Anselmo must have been tombstoned for another

post. That would explain why this one is still here, but Anselmo has joined the departed.

Maybe the Washington Post will pick up the story. :rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

8. You have disrupted poorly.

[islandmkl]

9. "..dat cold, cold granite goin' to look good up der..."

[wileedog]

14. So the media wants the drama to keep going despite it inevitable finish

Fucking shocking

[Aloha Spirit]

15. I'm inclined to think that WaPo OpEd is a load of hot sh*t