Wolcott v. New York Times
It's Jim, for the win:
Shorter New York Times editorial: Hillary Clinton's ruthless insistence on winning big-state primaries with traditional Democratic voters only hastens and strengthens the case that she drop out of the race and let Barack Obama finish his waffle.
That made my day. Thanks!
Posted by: tdraicer | April 23, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Wolcott hits it out of the park!
Posted by: Judith | April 23, 2008 at 03:24 PM
Totally hit it out of the park. I got the biggest kick out of that when I read it earlier today.
Posted by: blue girl | April 23, 2008 at 04:27 PM
I didn't think much of that stupid editorial either.
http://www.progressiveinvolvement.com/progressive_involvement/2008/04/who-wrote-that.html
Posted by: John Petty | April 23, 2008 at 05:27 PM
And so that Tom Haydn's wife can go back to meditation and not screaming at her tv. Original at Huffpost, but would never encourage anyone to venture there.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/23/94623/4917
Posted by: stellaa | April 23, 2008 at 05:48 PM
/yawn... we've had, what, 28 debates? Is there any actual reason to have yet another? Is there any substantive difference between these 2 candidates that you're confused on?
Clinton at one point said she was 'honored' to be vying with Obama for the nomination. Since then all she's done is try to tear him down and belittle him.
Is this what we're really down to? "Dare ya to debate! Double dare ya!! Scairdy cat!!"
Posted by: rick | April 26, 2008 at 10:47 PM
rick - in a thread about how awesome Wolcott's post is - are we really down to you?
Posted by: Judith | April 27, 2008 at 10:10 PM