David Simon, Call Your Office

I don't blame Tom Schaller for this but methinks maybe an editor at The Baltimore Sun should have been a bit more cautious:

Whether or not Mrs. Clinton can come back to win the nomination, fellow Sen. Barack Obama's victories in Iowa and, last night, in New Hampshire utterly demolished any notion of her inevitability. He is now the clear front-runner, a development that has shaken up not only the Democratic primary but the Republican one as well. His continued success would also make an independent run by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg much less likely.

Ah, buyouts.

Comments

Yes, but wasn't that absolutely correct for, like, a whole 5 days? What, is he supposed to be like Nostradamus or something?

Posted by El Cid | January 9, 2008 10:45 AM

El Cid - reread the first sentence Matt highlighted.

Damn budget cuts.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 9, 2008 10:53 AM

That's deeply fucking funny. It doesn't hurt the humor value that I already think Schaller is a moron.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 10:57 AM

I don't think Schaller's a moron, but I think this, combined with his diagnosis of HRC's 'angry meltdown' in the debate as the 'beginning of the end of the Clinton era' (or words to that effect) indicate that his Obamania is running a bit ahead of the facts.

(I'm an Edwards supporter, and I think Schaller's right about the politics wrt Obama and Bloomberg).

Posted by Jim | January 9, 2008 11:10 AM

I don't understand why you don't blame Tom Schaller for this. He had a narrative for his column and wasn't going to let a little thing like waiting to see if the facts actually supported it get in his way. It's actually a perfect example of the vapidity of today's punditry. Sure, the editors are morons, too, but this is Schaller's baby.

Posted by Glenn | January 9, 2008 11:11 AM

"I don't think Schaller's a moron, but I think this, combined with his diagnosis of HRC's 'angry meltdown' in the debate as the 'beginning of the end of the Clinton era' (or words to that effect) indicate that his Obamania is running a bit ahead of the facts."

I thought that was the smartest thing he'd ever written. I agreed with him that Edwards and Obama linking arms together was going to reshape the Democratic Party.

I didn't contemplate public tears as Team Clinton's response to the alliance, and I suspect Schaller didn't either.

Team Clinton successfully smashed through the alliance with crying. How fucking weird is that?

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 11:21 AM

Yeah, he got a little ahead of himself all right.

Posted by Susan | January 9, 2008 11:24 AM

I don't think I've seen a blunder quite like this since my youth in the first Dewey Administration.

Posted by rea | January 9, 2008 11:40 AM

Why are you reading the Sun? Even Baltimore residents don't read that Tribble-Down rag.

Posted by MR | January 9, 2008 11:50 AM

look at the delegate count. (you know, the people who actually vote at the convention).

Obama did win. 12-11

Posted by freaktown | January 9, 2008 11:55 AM

"It's actually a perfect example of the vapidity of today's punditry. Sure, the editors are morons, too, but this is Schaller's baby."

Well, it kinda depends on whether the editors asked for an "Obama wins" column from Schaller in anticipation of the win, and didn't bother subbing in a "Clinton wins" column when the result was known.

If that's the case, it's hard to fault Schaller.

If the editors just asked Schaller for a column about the Primary, or he wrote this for a regular column he has, then that's pretty lame of him.

Posted by Jon H | January 9, 2008 11:58 AM

look at the delegate count. (you know, the people who actually vote at the convention). Obama did win. 12-11

Just like Bush 2000, Obama loses the popular vote but wins the electoral vote.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 9, 2008 12:05 PM

Yeah, I know, I was trying to be sarcastic, but I guess it completely didn't work to suggest that knowing the past required a seer like (the myth of) Nostradamus.

But given last night's whole check-mark scandal, I wouldn't trust my reading either.

Posted by El Cid | January 9, 2008 12:07 PM

look at the delegate count. (you know, the people who actually vote at the convention). Obama did win. 12-11

Just like Bush 2000, Obama loses the popular vote but wins the electoral vote.

Not exactly. Obama and Clinton tied for delegates you actually win via voting. Obama won one more "superdelegate" than Hillary, giving him the 12 to her 11.

Posted by Cain | January 9, 2008 1:07 PM

Not exactly. Obama and Clinton tied for delegates you actually win via voting. Obama won one more "superdelegate" than Hillary, giving him the 12 to her 11.

Well, and let's be clear here: You don't "win" superdelegates, and they had nothing to do with the primary. They are party officials who are free to support anyone they like. CNN's assignation of the superdelegates is, as I understand it, based on their survey of them but it's not fixed and could change at any time. If you do happen to put stock in the superdelegate numbers, then according to CNN Hillary is leading overall, 183-78. (Edwards has 52.)

Posted by Glenn | January 9, 2008 1:22 PM

Why, it's as if the Sun were living up to its depiction on "The Wire."

Posted by Clem | January 9, 2008 3:48 PM

For the record, the Sun fixed the error before it went to print... but they sneakily edited the online version without any mention of the CORRECTION -- read the comments on Schaller's actual Op Ed. Oh the slippery slope of online journalism.

Posted by Living The Wire | January 9, 2008 4:06 PM

It's telling that they just changed it from "victory" to "strong showing" and ran the rest of the article unchanged.

Why should actual events get in the way of a perfectly good analysis?

Posted by Jason C. | January 9, 2008 4:15 PM