Hotline After Dark -- Dis-ad-vantage?

A lot of last night's TV focused on the NC GOV ads that attack Barack Obama and Rev. Wright, as well as John McCain's request to the NC GOP to take them off the air.

Politico's Simon, on the ad: "It is certainly nasty. I'm not sure it is unfair though. The media having run that clip about a million times more than the North Carolina party ever could run that clip. Who is more guilty? What is unfair about the ad is the implication that Barack Obama sat in that pew and heard Jeremiah Wright say those statements. Barack Obama says he never heard it, blah blah blah. But ... Barack Obama is not past this incident. And Jeremiah Wright is going to come up in the general election. It just is, just like people clinging to their guns and religion. He better get used to it" ("Hardball," MSNBC, 4/23).

GOP strategist Mary Matalin: "That is a standard that McCain has set for himself and he set for the national party, but the state parties are free and have always been free and are responsible, indeed, for their own races. ... What's wrong with playing that ad? That is not taken out of context. It is not distorting his words, like Barack Obama did to John McCain just today" ("Hannity & Colmes," FNC, 4/23).

CNN's Bash: "McCain insisted it's not a contradiction to go after Obama on those so-called bitter remarks because he said Obama has really stood by the sentiment of that whereas he has really disavowed those controversial comments by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. But it really is a fine line for McCain because he has set the bar so high for himself when it comes to running what he called a respectful campaign" ("Lou Dobbs Tonight," 4/23).

FNC's Hannity: "I disagree with Senator McCain. This isn't his campaign. He can run his campaign any way he wants. This is a legitimate issue. ... If John McCain wants to run his campaign that way, that's fine. I think it's a mistake. Because he's going to get hammered by either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They're going to try and throw the kitchen sink at him" ("Hannity & Colmes," 4/23).

After the jump, the New York Times gets an earful (KATHERINE LEHR).

EDITORIALS ON AN EDITORIAL

There was also talk about the New York Times editorial on Hillary Clinton.

Newsweek's Fineman: "I don't think they were in Pennsylvania when they wrote that editorial. In fact, it did work on a lot of the late deciders who went for Clinton partly on the strength of those negative ads and attacks that Clinton carried out. ... Hillary Clinton has nothing to lose. She has a negative rating that's about 50 percent. She wants to win on any terms she can win on and she's going to keep on keeping on. And if you think you've seen mean and vacuous so far, you ain't seen nothing yet" ("Countdown," MSNBC, 4/23).

New York Daily News' Louis: "I think what they were reacting to, which I think is a legitimate issue, is the use of the image of Osama Bin Laden. ... If you're suggesting it was poorly written, as a member of a rival editorial board, I might have to agree. But I think though that the deeper question that they were getting at, not very well in my opinion, is that you can't go around scaring voters. It's is not the right way to campaign" ("Lou Dobbs Tonight," CNN, 4/23).

Clinton chair Terry McAuliffe: "Sometimes, you know, you wonder where these editorial writers come from. ... I don't see it that way. The Obama campaign has been tough on Hillary. They have been tough on her character. They have been tough on her policies. In Ohio they put out misleading leaflets. ... They must have been in that little bunker with Dick Cheney, the editorial writers, because if had you been in Pennsylvania for the last six weeks and turned on your television set and had seen the negative ads against Hillary Clinton, as well as the mailings, you would not say what they said today" ("Hannity & Colmes," FNC, 4/23).