I’ve been reading the New York Times for almost 4 decades, beginning with the publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 after Daniel Ellsberg pirated them out of Washington. I still look at its front page regularly, and although my politics have changed somewhat over the years, I’ve still considered it to be at the forefront of journalistic standards.

They let me down with the McCain non-story a couple of months ago, and I thought they really botched that opportunity to do right by us with real news about lobbyist influence. Can’t have a good day every day, I guess.

Today is not so good a day for the Times either, though. Their editorial following Hillary Clinton’s victory in Pennsylvania’s primary doesn’t represent their best thinking, and should be panned. Let’s look at a few lines to see if you agree.

The basic premise is that Clinton went negative and ignored issues, opting instead for what it called a “meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering” campaign than in preceding contests.

“Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work.”

Clinton won the primary by 10 percentage points. I’ve always thought that a double digit margin was a pretty good licking, never mind just a win. Whatever it was she did, it clearly worked, notwithstanding the Times’ claim to the contrary. The editorial beat her about the head with words of condemnation for her tactics, clearly upset with her depression – food lines – gas lines – Pearl Harbor – bin Laden commercial. But the paper’s assertion that “it does not work” does not work. She won.

In a feeble attempt to appear fair, the Times mildly scolded Barack Obama, but characterized his tactics as merely taking her bait, so to speak, re-active in his negatives rather than pro-active. The editorial read:

“All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.”

I would imagine the Clinton camp liked these words very much. He is young and inexperienced, and the point of the pointed Clinton attacks on his relative youth and inexperience is, well . . . you get it. I can hear them thanking the Times for this line.

I’ve had the good fortune to spend time outside of the United States, and the even better fortune to come back safely and well. While away, I saw streets patrolled by soldiers with guns, and in some countries had those guns pointed at me on more than a couple of occasions. I’ve seen piles of dead bodies left on roadsides to bloat in the equatorial sun, and the public executions of criminals in arenas being broadcast on local TV. The Times comes from the city where nearly 3000 of our brothers and sisters were senselessly murdered in 2001.

This is a dangerous world we live in, to be sure. Suggesting that very concept during a campaign for the presidency is not wrong. Suggesting that the next president will inherit that reality is not wrong. Suggesting you are better equipped to assume that inheritance than is your opponent is not wrong. In fact, to ignore that reality, or play a “make nice” about it, would be irresponsible. To do so in a way that spotlights his “relative youth and inexperience” is simply good politics.

The editorial was entitled “Low Road to Victory,” and included the following line:

“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.”

The Times does not mention, however, that she would have had to win more than 70% of the vote in order the change the calculus of the race in any substantive way, and she was never projected to do that anyway. Early exit polling last night was causing news outlets to begin discussing an Obama 5 point victory. That pretty much puts the value of polling into perspective, and makes the Times line a meaningless throw-away. And according to most reports this morning, Obama outspent Clinton by closer to a 3-1 margin, and when all of the beans are counted, that’s likely to stand up.

Not bad, really. Outspent 3-1, win by 10 points. She did something right, and never mind what the Times says. This is presidential politics, ward politics, machine politics, and it does get bloody sometimes. So does the real world – - the world our next president will face next January. Let’s stand the heat in the kitchen a little better next time.