"Calculated to make Clinton look foolish."

Sorry, but HRC doesn't need any help doing that! She is the only person I know who laughs hysterically while dodging sniper fire in Florida, threatens to obliterate the entire middle east and openly mocks the laws of math, science and economics.

Besides, the newspaper is sure to have writers and editors on its staff who have lived life outside of the fishbowls of NYC and WV. THEY can see the handwriting on the wall.

Nothing snide, its just that you are pushing Clinton's popular vote rhetoric knowing clearly it is false.

You are right, the NYT, and most of the media, has been down on Clinton for a few weeks now. I guess it is a bit of a pendulum swing. She went from being the inevitable nominee to someone who lost despite clear advantages in almost every conceivable aspect of primary politics. Perhaps the NYT is tough on her because it is her hometown paper and it holds her to a higher standard than other outlets. Perhaps the NYT is tough on her because her campaign has done foolish things.

All that being said, it possible that you are sightly out of touch with what new yorkers are thinking and that the NYT is actually in step. I am a New Yorker who moves within NYT readers and I havent heard a single person say anything about Hillary taking an unfair beating in the NYT

The NYT put the weight of the "paper of record" behind their hometown senator before super tuesday - when it mattered most

What you see now is their disappointment as well as the voice of individual columnists who are disappointed with the polarizing and negative campaign Sen Clinton had sunk to before the NC/Indiana decisions

What you are seeing is a newspaper who supported Sen Clinton but being realists now accept and know that Sen Obama will be the Democratic nominee and they have their eye on November

This is something all democrats should be doing
Focusing on McCain and a Novemeber victory for Barack Obama

The primary is over and even Sen Clinton knows this - it's time everyone who wants this country to have change and move forward gather together in support of the nest POTUS - Barack Obama

Unfortuately, this part and parcel with the inevitable scapegoating and demonization that's emerging among her true-believing zealots as they try to externalize the reasons for her imminent defeat and justify their own continued zealotry. Its all the rage (and I use the word advisedly) over in the Hillosphere--OpenLeft, Taylor's marsh and Hillis44.

The emerging narrative goes like this:

Because Hillary is perfect and wonderful and supremely competent and Obama is evil and corrupt and vacuous, the collapse of her candidacy (which hasn't happened, because she could still win this thing if only she can stop the DNC from DISENFRANCHISING Michigan and Florida) cannot be due to any flaws in Hillary or her campaign, or any merit of Obama or his campaign.

Nein! Nein! It is not to be considered! Instead, this is all the result of a conspiracy between the corrupt power brokers and the corporate media! Hillary vas shtabbed in der back by der media! They've always wanted Obama. They have printed and aired nothing but complimentary stories about Obama (except for Fox, which, we've discovered, is the last outpost of honest journalism in America) and nothing but negative stories about Hillary. How can the poor dumb, ignorant voters possibly have seen through this wall of bias?

It's the media, after all which has failed to dig out and publish all the terrible, terrible things about Obama that we just know must be true. Why, we heard this one guy say that he has THE DIRT on Obama and its every bit as bad as we always feared, and yet the media is SUPPRESSING the TRUTH! The evil, corrupt sexist media has done sexist things like focusing on her Tale of Tuzla Terror. Their slanted coverage made it look like her very meritorious gas tax proposal was just gross, base pandering, what with thier quoting all those so-called "experts. (And Hillary's gax tax proposal is totally, totally different from McCain's gas tax proposal but that's being concealed by the evil, corrupt media.)

And, of course, because we know that Hillary won every single debate, except maybe that one where all those mean men piled on her--which was totally about her gender and not at all about the fact that she was the frontrunner--any perception that Hillary did not win must be because those ideas were IMPLANTED into the brains of the dumb, stupid ignorant voters by those vile people in the media.

And don't try to tell us otherwise because we know all of those so-called people posting pro-Obama comments on blogs are PAID SHILLS of the Obama campaign!

I was always afraid that this derangement would happen if she drug the campaign out long after she should have known it was over--i.e. after Wisconsin. I'm hoping she'll step up try to help some of them out of this.

Funny, I thought the NYT turned on its readers when they endorsed Hillary.

We've put too much emphasis on one particular woman and not enough emphasis on benefit to all women. Mrs. Clinton may not "win" this nomination, but she has served women by running and making such a strong showing. The article pointed this out when it said: "Mrs. Clinton easily cleared the bar with many voters on her ability to be commander in chief, making it easier to see a woman in that role." And that is progress! I thought the article was excellent because it took the focus off of being angry about defeat and started the process of looking forward to other possibilities for victory. There are many impressive women in this country. Obama has demonstrated that a person with character and charisma can come out of no where and garner the support of a nation in a relatively short time. We women sell ourselves short if we think that there is no other woman out there who may be coming into her own in the next four or eight years. America could have had a woman president before now if Ann Richards had been willing to run. It could have had a black president before now if Collin Powell had been willing to run. The democratic party has been willing for both and now we have an opportunity for one or the other, but not both at the same time. One candidate was bound to win and one to lose. That's how politics works. So we join together and we elect the one the voters give us this time. And next time we join together and elect the one who hasn't come on our radar yet---But she will! She will because Hillary Clinton has prepared the way. John the Baptist wasn't Jesus, but he still played the essential role of John the Baptist. Hillary has played the essential role of the one who prepares the way. But don't ever think there won't be another woman who will play the leading role. She's out there. I can feel her. I can almost see her. We're waiting for her. And somewhere, she's out there doing what she needs to do; growing, becoming, gaining experience, waiting to be born into our consciousness. And when she comes, we'll all join together and stand behind her----if we still have a party to join together. If we don't shatter and destroy all that we've built because we have allowed ourselves to be overcome with anger, discouragement and disappointment. I hope that we won't choose to be that small. Why are we so willing to believe that our party will never "for another generation" produce another woman of substance. Of course we will! We already are! We just haven't met her yet!

It will be interesting to watch the Hillary supporters cut off their nose to spite their face in the coming months. Will they still be crying when McCain stacks the Supreme Court and has Roe v. Wade overturned?

Step one might be to take off the tin foil hat before reading the Times. Step two might be to read every political article in the paper, not just the ones you don't like or that your favorite blog links to in outrage. If you can't do that, you might somehow join up with the folks always accusing Greg Sargent of having pro-Clinton bias and have a tin foil hat party.

specialist,

You're not wearing a tinfoil hat, as Lamont suggests. If you're a Hillary supporter, step one is to stop reading the political coverage in the NYT. For starters, it's not well reported or well written. Either the staff is totally nasty in real life or they are trying to complete with the blogs for snarkiest bitch-slap.

It's not just Patrick Healy, it's self-important hack Adam Nagourney. It's not like Nagourney went to Harvard or anything; he used to work at USA TODAY. Jeff Zeleny and Katharine Q. Seelye might be tolerable sometimes. Michael Luo sucks. Long story short, it's not a stellar staff.

When you combine piss-poor political reporting with the op-ed pages, headlined by Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, David Brooks, and Frank Rich, Hillary doesn't stand a chance. Paul Krugman can't unbury her all by himself. Take heart that she does so well in spite of these clowns.

There is a bias against Hillary at the NYT, and has been for a long time (check out Media Matters's archives). The NYT is too busy admiring its own reflection to give a shit what its readers think.

But don't worry about Obama's temperate coverage now. His turn will end. The NYT is total McCain country (except for maybe Rich).