La page éditoriale du New York Times, qui a donné son soutien à Hillary Clinton à la veille des scrutins du Super Mardi, pourfend la sénatrice au lendemain de sa victoire par neuf points en Pennsylvanie. Le Times estime que la rivale de Barack Obama a choisi d'emprunter la voie la plus négative - celle de Karl Rove - pour triompher. Ce faisant, elle nuit non seulement à sa réputation, mais également à celle de son parti et de son rival, selon le Times, qui recommande aux super-délégués de trouver une issue à une course à l'investiture démocrate qui ne peut être gagnée aux urnes.

Je cite dans le texte un extrait de l'éditorial du Times pour donner une idée du ton :

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.

P.S. : Le gouverneur d'Oklahoma, Brad Henry, annonce qu'il donnera son soutien à Barack Obama.