As long as we’re talking about the Times today, here’s an interesting piece by Frank Rich which sort of constitutes and early obituary for Hillary’s hopes and dreams.

While I couldn’t disagree more with his assessment of Iraq (and while that assessment demonstrates all too clearly what’s at stake if we let Obama win), his assessment of the left’s reaction to Iraq is spot-on; and while he doesn’t give MoveOn and Obama’s internet effort its due, much of what he describes flows directly from there.

It’s great analysis. Definitely worth a read, even if it is Frank Rich.

The Sunday New York Times contains this story by its ombudsman admitting just how bad the paper’s hit piece on John McCain really was. (Breitbart coverage here.)

Not sure how this helps the Times’ long-tarnished image as “the paper of record”, but it definitely tends to buttress Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger’s prediction that the paper’s print edition will be out of business in five years.

Let’s face it: the New York Times is about as objective as the Daily Kos, and frequently less well reported. But if it wants to become a blog, Markos better watch out.

Apparently the takeover of the Democratic Party by the MoveOn/Obama faction of the loony left wing of the party isn’t enough for some people. Ralph Nader announced today that he will be a third-party candidate for President this fall.

There are so many things you can say to this. But I guess the most relevant would be, this may be a Republican year yet. Thanks again, Ralphie: we knew we could count on you.