Dear Dan, as usual you present your arguments in true lawyer fashion. You present them in a way that is really non committal suggesting the way you would like to hear a response, then saying that isn't your point at all. I will however try to see if I can answer the paradox. The point the new York times is making is that Hillary Clinton is playing the game like a true republican(isn't she supposed to be a democrat?) She has no way according to the rules of the party to win,the only way she can win is if Barack drops out. Her win is too little, too late. Yes she won a state she was expected to win, but she did so at the expense of whom she knows will be the nominee of her party. She is self serving and will consider no limits of showing her displeasure at losing giving those who support her false hope,The very thing she decries the other candidate of doing. I am one of those apparently few non-exsistent white male supporters that none of news organizations polls seem to acknowledge. In short I believe The New York Times did not go far enough, I think they should have pulled their endorsement entirely. I also believe that it is shameless that news agents like yourselves ( with the exception of a few such as Keith) do not tell people the absolute truth in saying" SHE CANNOT WIN ACCORDING TO THE DNC RULES!" Am I completely wrong in believing that maybe it is because of ratings?

1. primaries in the remaining states would help the nominee in the general in that more Democratic voters are being registered.

2. primaries in the remaining states would hurt the nominee in that the negative campaigns are, as you have pointed out, working. They worked to drive up Obama's negatives for Clinton to hold on to a lead so as to win PA. But they are also working to weaken both candidates, raising both their negatives, and that is not good for the democratic nominee come the general election.

3. The primaries should continue as long as they refrain from negative attacks. If they can't do that then super delegates should move faster in the direction of the current front runner. I think that is fair and right and that may be why the NYT article came out: it is the NYT moving toward the high road after what they saw from the campaigns, especially the Clinton's, in the last few weeks.

Play nice or playtime is over.

Unless you are McCain supporter then its "poke your eyes out kids"

I can't stand negative campaigning! Especially when it comes from Hillary Clinton!! Of course, I have never supported her anyway, but the more she trashes Barack Obama, the more I dislike her. And for the life of me, I can't understand why negative campaigning seems to work. What in the world is the matter with people that they place so much emphasis on not wearing a lapel flag or not placing one's hand over their heart during the national anthem or what one's pastor says or whether one says some voters are "bitter". Hillary Clinton's attitude and campaign are all about her and "winning" no matter what the cost. There are so many very presssing issues that must be dealt with--the high cost of fuel that is starting to affect the entire economy and the world, the sad state of the economy itself, the refusal to deal with the very real threat of global warming, the skyrocketing cost of health care and people's inability to pay for it, the continuing slump in the housing market, the lack of wage increases to keep up with rising costs--just to name a few. These are the issues people should be concerned with. Negative campaigning addresses none of these!! Shame on all Americans (especially the press) that place suh importance on such trivial matters!!

It is not that she is winning with only democrats, she is winning with the help of republicans in states like Pennsylvania. The longer they can vote for her the longer they think that they will split the democrats. But I've got news for you and the rest of the media. Mud after a while turns into bricks and these will be thrown back at those who would seek to make the mud. Those true Democrats have turned away from the Me D uH circus and are concentrating on the REAL problems and the nation.

I agree with the previous posters. I was raised to believe if you had something to offer you did not have to bring another person down to show what you have to offer. Anyone that has to do that has something hide themself. Hillary Clinton said it herself she has alot of baggage that none of us care about. I think of these elections like this,each candidate is applying for a job we the people are doing the hiring. They submit their apps, by way of interviews, debates, campaign speeches and some news from the press. We don't get to tear their friends lives upside down or tell them to renounce, be unfailthful to or disavow any knowledge of someone because we disagree with their views. What happen to a persons rights to free speech. Why does everyone have to agree with everthing that our government does or says or risk being called unAmerican.I guess me writing this fits that bill,too. This election has gotten so off track with everyone daily attacking the other, then the other asking for the other to renounce this statement by the person. I'm getting dizzy The WWE thing is starting to look like a good idea,place all three in the ring and the last 1 standing gets the job.

I don't think there is any question about which candidate is the more negative.

However, it seems to this child that the news media and all the political commentators pick up and play and replay all the negative actions and comments because they are "juicy" news.

A politician kissing babies or trying to do good work does not stand a chance of equal media coverage when compared to a good, nasty and maybe even true allegation by a rival.

Consequently these negative actions get more coverage, and thus are more effective.

Note Rev. Wright, Mr. Obama has said that he does not subscribe to the comments and positions of the Rev. Why then does the media continue to focus on the Reverend?

And, does it only appear to me that Rev. Wright is fast becoming a legend in his own mind as his addiction to the national spotlight grows and continues to shine on him.

Do you honestly believe that as long as the media continues to give Rev. Wright a forum he will stop talking?

Thus the negative guilt by association continues to prevail while Presidential Candidate Obama plays three on basketball with some inner city kids is not even reported by the press.

I CAN GUARANTEE THAT IF THE MEDIA REFUSED TO

REPORT THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS AND ACTIONS

BY EITHER CANDIDATE THEY WOULD STOP.

Then maybe we the voter would hear a candidates position on the issues.

I think that all the Obamaniacal media's whining about Hillary's so-called negative campaigning is biased and considerably myopic. Obama has been just as negative, he simply uses his surrogates to sling the mud. MSNBC has acted like an Obama surrogate as well.

The New York Times tends to be bleeding-heart liberal, which is actually racist, but in a condescending way. They assume that Obama can't withstand the scrutiny and blame Hillary for bringing out the truth. Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Michelle's newly found pride in her country, bitter-gate, the "present" votes in the IL State Senate and the complete absence for the Iran vote in the U.S. Senate (the one he had the audacity to criticize Hillary for). I can guarantee you that the GOP will make certain that the truth will come out, and it will have as much mud as possible attached to it. They won't do it directly through McCain's campaign, they will do it through 527s. The swift-boating is well on its way to the starting block.

Obama is a great speaker, but one speech does not a career make. Nor does it speak for his judgment. Judgment is a lifetime of decisions. His lack of experience won't show until it's too late for us to di anything to prevent the disaster from happening. The fact that he is so arrogant about hs ignorance about how Washington works will make it difficult for him to accept guidance. When he scoffs at experience as being Washington "trying the boil all the hope out of him," you know we're in trouble. His "new kind of politics" apparently has not been of much help to him in the U.S. Senate, where he has yet to sponsor a bill and follow it through the Congress until it becomes law. For someone who brags about his ability to bring people together, he certainly hasn't shown it in the U.S. Senate.

The problems facing this country are daunting, and that's assuming nothing else goes wrong before we can get Bush out of office (especially before he attacks Iran). Obama's campaign staff ran a good campaign, but he is not a good candidate. The way he handled bitter-gate and Rev. Wright and his poor performance in the ABC debate (the first debate where the press didn't coddle him), are evidence of this. As Bill Crystal said about Hillary, her campaign was not equal to her talent as a candidate.

When I hear the nastiness and contempt from you and your peers regarding Hillary, I find it enraging and sad. Building her up as the most significant political figure in 50 years is a bit much, dont you think? She had an uphill battle all the way with all the MCP that still exist. The treatment she received during this campaign was even worse than that of Geraldine Ferraro. Wny? Because you guys can get away with it, so you do.

hillary has been the subject of violent sexism since day 1 (negative), so what type of campaigning would you like her to do?

media like msnbc, particulary matthews and olberman, have never given clinton fair press. daily female bashing is disgusting, and even worse, the press ignores it

obama has run a p.r. campaign, leading the press around. now in his final hour, he wamts to come out with a lapel pin, scream i love this country and i want to have a hamber and beer like the little poor people. i will vote MCCAIN if hillary does not get the nomination. i stated that long before the primaries began, so don't blame it on clinton. obama is racist, sexist and negative.

Why is it always the Clinton supporters that can't use proper punctuation, spelling or grammar in their comments? There is really no excuse, Daniel, especially considering that you were nice enough to include a spell checking interface in the program.
God. I'm so racist, sexist and negative.

Going negative means- being deceitful, manipulating facts, telling lies and when caught- shrugging it off as if- you didn't understand.

If you have nothing to say about yourself- lie about your accomplishments, or the lack of your opponents.

Sounds like a Clinton- they do it all.

Obama supporters no longer want this kind of shoddy government in Washington.
We want them to work for us- not themselves!

No Clinton or Clinton supporter on a ticket with Obama. We would never support it- we want change.
Certainly not Bill wandering around while his wife is sitting in the oval office- yuk!!