The NYTimes on the Pennsylvania Primary

Pennsylvania Results

From the Official Pennsylvania State Department of Elections:

99.34% precincts reporting.


Candidate Votes Percent
CLINTON, HILLARY (DEM)
1,237,696 54.3%
OBAMA, BARACK (DEM)
1,043,174 45.7%


DON'T BELIEVE THE MSM LIE ABOUT A 10 POINT WIN FOR HER.

*************************************************

From The Field, comparing Obama's numbers in Ohio to Pennsylvania:

We’ll know more in the morning but it seems like the margin in Pennsylvania will be between 8 and 10 percentage points, which means:

Clinton’s margin among all voters in Ohio (10.5 percent) diminished by the time she got to Pennsylvania.

The margin among registered Democrats (a 14 percent lead in Ohio) diminished by at least 39 percent in Pennsylvania.

Among white registered Democrats (70 percent of them in Ohio) - the demographic that the pastor-bashing and bitter-posturing was aimed at - Senator Clinton lost 24 percent (down to 53 percent in Pennsylvania).

Among African-American registered Democrats (14 percent of them in Ohio) she lost 42 percent of her previous support (down to 8 percent in Pennsylvania).

All the posturing and negativity didn’t gain her a single yard.

In fact, Senator Clinton lost ground in every one of those key foundations of her former base vote.

Whether or not the commercial media spins it that way - in her campaign’s lexicon - “doesn’t matter.”

And ye shall know the dumbest and slowest - and intentionally dishonest - political reporters, pundits, bloggers (and former presidential candidates and spouses) by those that argue otherwise.

***********************************************************
From The New York Times (which endorsed Clinton for President):

April 23, 2008
Editorial
The Low Road to Victory


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.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.

If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: “We would be able to totally obliterate them.”

By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton’s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about “bitter” voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.

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. And if they think that only Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they’re wrong.

After seven years of George W. Bush’s failed with-us-or-against-us presidency, all American voters deserve to hear a nuanced debate — right now and through the general campaign — about how each candidate will combat terrorism, protect civil liberties, address the housing crisis and end the war in Iraq.

It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.