He went boom-dadadadadadada, boom-dadadada!

I'm just so elated tonight with Obama's stunning performance, all I can think to post is the most joyful song I've heard in the past few months -- Dr. Dog's cover of Architecture in Helsinki's "Heart It Races." Give it 30 seconds, this is one heck of a catchy tune:

Regardless of what happens in the next couple of hours, this race is effectively over. Obama swamped Clinton in North Carolina, taking a large chunk of the last big batch of delegates, and has at worst wrestled Hillary to a tie in Indiana, eliminating the possibility of any further (credible) spin for her campaign.

This diary is about ice cream, cake and the current election. Stick around to find out what the relevance is...

Every single pundit on TV and in the media is committing the identical error when they interpret the results of various primaries and caucuses. After each contest, exit polls are examined to determine who is "winning" and "losing" various demographics, with each camp using its own metrics.

Looking at the world through the patented Mark Penn microtargeted lens, Clinton partisans speciously argue that Obama is being "rejected" by certain types of voters -- older voters, Catholics, "lunchbucket" Democrats (isn't that phrase itself incredibly condescending?), etc. Meanwhile, the Obama camp tries to promote a colder, more comparative interpretation, noting that Obama has improved his standing among those demographics, and pointing out others where Clinton is "losing" voters -- for example, among youth and other independent-minded new voters.

And of course the mainstream media dutifully accepts and parrots this framing -- viewing the race through this lens of winning and losing demographics --  though its premise is entirely bogus. How so? I'll tell you after the jump...

Would the New York Times (a/k/a the "Gray Lady" in media circles) please make up its mind about the meaning of last night's results? Here is a sample of just a few wildly contradictory statements from today's paper:

INTRODUCTION TO LEAD ARTICLE:
Mrs. Clinton's margin in Pennsylvania was probably not sufficient to alter the basic dynamics of the race

FROM LEAD EDITORIAL:
Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race.

But then:

HEADLINE OF SECOND ARTICLE:
With Clear Victory, She Has Rationale to Fight On

Like most Kossacks, I will be watching the results of today's primary with keen interest, checking in to Kos and The Field in particular for the latest results and analysis.

But in truth, and no offense to Keystone State voters, I have to ask -- How does Pennsylvania really matter?

Consider, for example, this article from the McClatchy newspaper chain:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/...

... that I was utterly embarrassed by the network's handling of last night's debate -- though not terribly surprised. (See my note at the end of this diary.)

Here is the email I just sent to Mr. Salinger, et al.:

As someone who worked for Janice Tomlin, Dan Goldfarb and Pam Hill in the late 80s while in college, I was completely appalled by the childish tenor and utter superficiality of the questions posed by Mssrs. Gibson and Stephanopoulos last night.

ABC News achieved a new low in presidential debate moderation. If the questions had been gathered from random people on the subway, more light would have been shed on the plans and qualifications of these two candidates.

I was utterly ashamed by the performance of a news network whose name I once was proud to have on my resumé. No longer.

If you thought the Tuzla story was embarrassing, this one really ought to cause the Clinton campaign to hang its collective head in shame:

According to a story published today at Politico.com, among the many bills not being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign are the premiums for her staff's health care coverage:

Among the debts reported this month by Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, the $292,000 in unpaid health insurance premiums for her campaign staff stands out.

Clinton, who is being pressured to end her campaign against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, has made her plan for universal health care a centerpiece of her agenda.

As a New York State Democrat who donated to the Spitzer campaign and volunteered my time to get him elected, I am writing this diary to say:

Stop making excuses for Eliot Spitzer, people. Spitzer brought this disgrace on himself, and he should have known better.

As an Obama supporter, I am naturally hoping for a clear-cut win in Texas and a narrow win in Ohio. As a realist, I think there is a chance Clinton could eke out narrow popular vote wins in both states.

It is imperative for the Obama campaign to be on top of the media tonight in every respects, but especially in regard to the Texas results -- which may be quite complicated to interpret.

In particular, Obama's campaign must be prepared to urge the media to focus on the combined Texas delegate results from both the primary and caucus, even as Clinton's people can be expected to try to focus attention solely on the Texas primary popular vote if it favors them.

This is ultra-important because if Clinton wins Ohio and narrowly wins the Texas primary vote, she will announce that she "won both states," even if she loses the Texas caucus and overall contest for delegates in the Lone Star state.

Let's review:

For some time now, I've been concerned that Hillary Clinton might really be a Republican.

I know, I know. She says that she's a registered Democrat. Now, I've never actually seen her registration card. But I have no reason to doubt that she is really a Democrat, just like she says.

Well, actually, to be honest I maybe have a couple reasons to doubt it...

In an article posted Sunday to the front page of its website, The New York Times uses this article about calls for Senator Clinton to leave the race as an opportunity to move the goalposts once again for Hillary:

Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont hold primary contests [on Tuesday], and the Clinton campaign, trailing in the delegates needed for nomination and having lost the last 11 straight contests, has acknowledged that the New York senator needs to win at least Ohio or Texas [emphasis mine]. Both candidates were campaigning Sunday in Ohio.

I've just cruised the websites of six "major" news organizations, and then tabulated their various delegate counts as of today (25 February 2008, 6 pm EST). ... This table follows after the jump, but the average of these counts shows Obama ahead by a little under 100 (pledged and unpledged) delegates:

Obama: 1,361
Clinton: 1,268

So Texas and Ohio are not her firewall now.

Maybe the Clinton campaign just needs to say this to buck up its funders and supporters. But this New York Times report looks an awful lot like Hillary moving the goalposts again:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed to carry her campaign beyond the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, despite the lengthening odds of her capturing the Democratic presidential nomination.

It was just a couple of days ago that former president (and former party hero) Bill Clinton told Texans that it was over if she didn't win in Ohio and Texas.

Let's review the Democratic primary landscape thus far:

1. On Super Tuesday, which was supposed to be Hillary Clinton's firewall,  Barack Obama wrestled Hillary Clinton into a tie.

2. It is easy to forget how inconceivable that outcome was just a few months ago, with Clinton widely expected to sew up the nomination no later February 5th.

3. Since then, Obama has won eleven straight primaries and caucuses, including today's Democrats Abroad victory.

4. Obama also has won more than two out of three (26 out of 37) of the primaries and caucuses held thus far.

For those Clinton supporters stoking the Obama "just words" flames, I say: Do you really want to continue this war of words?

On the front page of Tuesday's New York Times, an interesting quote from Hillary Clinton appears well above the fold:

"Mrs. Clinton told an audience that the Wisconsin primary and subsequent contests were 'a chance for all of you here to help take our country back."

ZOMG -- She said take our country back... It's plagiarism! Alert CNN, alert MSNBC, alert FoxNews, alert Lauer and Tapper and Limbaugh: Clinton is blatantly copying the language 2003-2004 presidential campaign of Howard Dean.

"Take our country back," "take your country back," "I want my country back." These, of course, were the rallying cries of Dean (and Deaniacs like myself).

In fact, Dean used the phrase in announcing his campaign on June 23rd, 2003.

Below the fold, I've gathered the current delegate tallies from six major news organizations: CBS, ABC, the A.P., CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times.

The first five media outlets all show Obama ahead in combined "pledged" and "unpledged" or "super" delegates, following his 8-state sweep after the dead heat of Super Tuesday. The average of these five tallies is:

Obama: 1,198
Clinton: 1,147

The New York Times tally, by contrast, is the only one which shows Clinton ahead -- by 83 delegates.

Now, I've been a news junkie all my life. I've only missed reading The New York Times a handful of times since I was 14 years old, and I'm in my late 30s.

So when I see the slanted way the Times as a whole -- not just its editorial department -- has handled the Democratic nominating process, I'm filled with dismay. Despite it's many failings, I considered this "my" paper -- at least until the Judith Miller debacle.

And paste it on telephone polls, in your workplace, bus kiosks, everywhere:

Type your own. No need to get fancy. The text says it all.

Or download a PDF here.

It takes 30 seconds. All you need is an ordinary inkjet printer, regular paper, pushpins, a stapler or tape -- and the dream of making change.

"She'll garnish your wages." If Senator Hillary Clinton is chosen as the Democratic nominee, mark my words: This will be a lead slogan for the Republican opposition.

And it goes to show that despite all her talk of "experience," Clinton has not learned much about politics since the early 90s.

Let me go back a couple of steps to provide some context to the argument.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters regularly tout the Senator and former First Lady as the candidate of experience.

But I submit that she is the candidate of bad experience, and of failing to learn from experience. And on this subject, the topic of how to promote universal health care in this country is Exhibit A.

In the early 90s, as everyone knows, Hillary Clinton tried but failed to reform the nation's health care system. An admirable goal... but secrecy and political hamhandedness abetted the health care industry, its lobbyists, and its paid defenders in Congress, who sent her plan down in flames.

Clinton, while touting her experience, spins this negative example as a "learning experience," one that redoubled her commitment to getting it right the next time.

But has she really learned from her mistake? Read on...

When it comes to Hillary Clinton, there is no shortage of unfair and unprincipled reasons for disliking her -- and if you listen to AM talk radio for an hour, you'll probably hear them all.

I reject the sexism of those who still think a former First Lady has no place in policy debates, just as I reject the absurd theories of those who think she had a hand in the death of her close friend Vince Foster.

Having volunteered on Clinton's first senate campaign, I get mad when I hear Rush Limbaugh savage her as a liar and an opportunist. I'm also grateful to her for keeping Rudy Guiliani and Rick Lazio out of the Senate.

But you don't have to be a sexist or a conspiracy theorist to oppose Clinton's candidacy.

I don't dislike Hillary; I distrust her. And my reasons are both substantive, and based on direct personal experience.

When a major issue hit the area where I live, New York's Hudson Valley, Clinton was less than honest with her constituents, and all too eager to take credit where none was due.