Side note: I’m taking a class right now in which our assigned readings every week are always articles from the New York Times. I asked the professor if she thought it was odd to obviously prefer one particular newspaper for the classroom — she said “no” — then I asked if she thought the Times had a liberal bias. Her response: “No, not at all.”

She wasn’t lying, either. Then it made me think: if someone can go to school long enough to receive their Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate degrees and still be unable to identify the basic political motivations behind some entities in this country (and the world) — there’s something wrong. My conclusion: modern education sucks — big time.

But enough of that. Here, now, is the New York Times backtracking on their endorsement of Hillary. Enjoy:

Yet for all of [Hillary Clinton’s] primary night celebrations in the populous states, exit polling and independent political analysts offer evidence that Mr. Obama could do just as well as Mrs. Clinton among blocs of voters with whom he now runs behind. Obama advisers say he also appears well-positioned to win swing states and believe he would have a strong shot at winning traditional Republican states like Virginia.

According to surveys of Pennsylvania voters leaving the polls on Tuesday, Mr. Obama would draw majorities of support from lower-income voters and less-educated ones - just as Mrs. Clinton would against Mr. McCain, even though those voters have favored her over Mr. Obama in the primaries.

And national polls suggest Mr. Obama would also do slightly better among groups that have gravitated to Republican in the past, like men, the more affluent and independents, while she would do slightly better among women. . . .

Mr. Hart, as well as Obama advisers, also say that Mr. Obama appears better poised than Mrs. Clinton to pick up states that Democrats struggle to carry, or rarely do, in a general election, like Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and Virginia, all of which he carried in the primaries. Obama advisers say their polling indicates he is more popular with independents, and far less divisive than Mrs. Clinton, in those states.

“Hillary goes deeper and stronger in the Democratic base than Obama, but her challenge is that she doesn’t go as wide,” Mr. Hart said. “Obama goes much further reaching into the independent and Republican vote, and has a greater chance of creating a new electoral map for the Democrats.” . . .

Obama advisers have also argued that swing states like Ohio are winnable this fall because they have been increasingly leaning Democratic and have been struggling economically under President Bush. Indeed, some Obama allies hope he will pick Ohio’s popular governor, Ted Strickland, as his running mate if he wins the nomination, both to help carry Ohio and to unify the party (Mr. Strickland is supporting Mrs. Clinton).

This is just pure malarkey — that’s right, malarkey.

I don’t care which poll you’re looking at, how can one deduce Obama — possibly the furthest left-wing candidate to ever run for President — can attract independents better than the more-moderate Clinton? It’s a moot point anyway: McCain attracts vastly more independents than either of them.

And the article states that Obama is “well-positioned” to win swing states and has a “strong shot” at winning traditionally Republican states. Here’s a better point to think about: how about the fact that Obama lost to Clinton in all of the most-populous states, including New York, New Jersey, California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (and probably Florida, if it were to happen). I don’t care which way Delaware “swings” — the voters in the big states all cast their votes to the more-moderate candidate, Clinton, and are more likely to support McCain in the General election.

Not that any of this liberal tomfoolery bothers me: the Times can say whatever they want about Obama; he’s damaged goods, and his ties to left-wing radicals have tarnished his reputation of being a “uniter.” They’ve filled his campaign with more “hate” than “hope.”

But then again — damn it — all of my political predictions this year have been wrong. So maybe Obama can pull it off. But the beauty of this country is that no single person, the President included, can wield enough power to bring about drastic change.

But if Obama wins the Presidency and the Democrats retain control of Congress — we’re screwed, and freedom-loving men like myself will have to avert to Plan B, which is… uh-oh: time to create Plan B.