I tend to agree with the Times' decision to not post that letter or any of the others they got. It's a campaign statement and not an unsolicited response to a story.

If Hillary wants an advertisement in the Times she should pay for one like everyone else.

They really should have said,"And we know she will make the BESTEST President of the United States EVER!!"

McCain played the situation like a pro to his great advantage. He dodged a bullet that may still turn back and hit him, but he really did a pretty sharp job this time.

This from the Clinton campaign. It just seems kind of childish and silly.

Wow, the Hillary campaign really blew this big-time. Poor judgment all around.

McCain didn't even bother to respond to the NYT directly. He went directly to Republicans, who can be counted upon to unite around the idea that the NYT is a liberal voice that they do not like or trust. And they rallied with him against the Times. So the Times story was never discussed in depth; only the very idea that that mean, horrible NYT published some sort of negative story about him. He made the Times the issue and took the story contents off the table. And he won.

Hillary's campaign, which would have a really hard time framing the NYT as a voice for the "conservative, right-wing conspiracy" missed the point entirely. The Democratic base is not going to turn on the NYT in this case, and they're not going to know what to make of Hillary turning on the NYT. So the campaign, which should have ignored the Times completely, instead tried to blame the Times. (I'm losing track of all the people, places and things they keep blaming for their own ineptitude...) They ultimately made it all about Hillary, NOT about the Times, and, as with everything else in her campaign, IT'S ALL ABOUT ME ME ME ME ME doesn't work for her.

Once more, total lack of "presidential" dignity or judgment.

Please end this soon!

And by "funny," I mean typically and transparently pro-Clinton.

Does it really matter if reality and perception are not quite on the same page here? I think the bigger issue is how the Clinton campaign has squandered both huge financial and political advantages to wind up in this position.

After reading the article (which I wouldn't have noticed, if not for the fuss), I'm not sure what they're complaining about. We all know she's facing a somewhat uphill struggle now, & has to win Ohio & Texas with decidedly big margins. This article was quite positive, I thought, and even rather flattering.

I'd also assume every staff person, in every campaign is 'tired.' They all have to be exhausted, physically and emotionally. I'm not sure what the fuss is here, other than a bid to follow McCain's reverse success.

I never thought I would live to see a political campaign more ineffectual and lost than John Kerry's.

But I see that I was wrong.

What's next for Her Imperial Majesty now that posting funny pictures of her opponent and attempting to publish testimonials from her own staff haven't worked? Prank phone calls to Obama's house?

Who is running her campaign? A bunch of twelve year olds?

"And it will be put on Ms. Clintons frigerator!!"

Frankly, I thought the Clinton piece in the Sunday Times was a puff piece on her. It made her under attack, yet still viable, instead of clearly describing the criminality in her camp.

The whole thing stinks. Is nobody able to be criticized or written about? Are only powerful people like the Clintons to have the power to threaten organizations?

Why would we want such a creep for president?

This country is long long gone thanks to people like the Clintons and Bushes. Way too much of this bullying shit going around-- leave the media to be, to write what they need, they are already on the CIA payroll as it is, and thus limitd in what they can write.

It's surprising the Clinton campaign isn't griping about Frank Rich's column too...or maybe they don't want to draw attention to it.

"The Audacity of Hopelessness"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html

[Thus spake the corporate shill], "the letter was not a letter to the editor... It's a press release from the Clinton campaign."

Because the M$M would never act as stenographers or propagandists.

Imagine being asked to sign such a letter by your boss--basically it's a loyalty oath. Of course you'd sign.

I imagine that the Times chose not to run the letter since it probably included the signatures of its confidential sources, hence undermining the letter's message.

As a publicity stunt the letter is marginal. Got some press, but it seems to reinforce Clintons coercive and scolding image. First Shuster, now the Times, who in the press will be left?

Maybe they should concentrate on winning more primaries and buying fewer doughnuts.

They decide what gets said.

But Democrats should look carefully at how the New York Times and much of the rest of the "liberal" media did their best to sink Hillary, just like Dean and Gore before her. I know that Obama supporters are dismissive and unsympathetic. Now. Just wait for your time in the barrel.

Everyone gets their LTE's published in the Times...

"If Hillary wants an advertisement in the Times she should pay for one like everyone else."

Or at least pay half-price like MoveOn.org does...

Why would the Clinton campaign be up in arms about a New York Times article that is actually pretty fair to them? The article discusses the melancholy and resignation in the campaign, but it also portrays Clinton as a determined fighter. It's a very balanced article, not a slam. The New York Times was right not to publish the multiple-signatures letter. It would be like if you got all your pals together to sign a letter in response to a story on page B-18 about a dog that was saved from euthanasia, and how happy you all are that Fluffy is still alive. The New York Times wouldn't publish that either.