New York Times

That is what this sounds like:

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.

That from the New York Times, who endorsed Clinton.

Bill Kirstol has a new hit piece in the New York Times, in which he flat out lies about Obama. There was no fact checking done at all. Will the New York Times fire him like they did Jayson Blair?

It looks like Kristol was wrong on his second New York Times piece:

Kristol in his column, which hailed the success of the "surge" in Iraq, concluded with this trump card: Now the Iraqi government has agreed on de-Baathification, a key gain that proves his point and pretty much destroys the Democrats' stand.

But now at www.nytimes.com comes a kind of corrective from the paper's Solomon Moore in Baghdad. It opens:

"A day after the Iraqi Parliament passed legislation billed as the first significant political step forward in Iraq after months of deadlock, there were troubling questions — and troubling silences — about the measure’s actual effects.

I bet they are just thrilled that they hired him.