April 22, 2008
NYT: "The Low Road To Victory"
The New York Times, which endorsed Hillary Clinton, criticized her in a blistering edit published online tonight for running a nasty PA campaign. The piece was, not surprisingly, circulated by Barack Obama's campaign.
NYT: 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.
On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.
Posted at 11:36 PM
Comments
Oh dear...oh gosh.....I guess Hillary fouled
out...for shame......she's the most reprehensible
politician in the world.....except for McCain,
or any politician with an REP following his name.
hombre | 04.22.08 11:55 PM
 |
So the NYT is shocked--shocked--that the PA campaign was nasty. And while the Obama campaign is happily circulating that editorial, perhaps it would do well to read this story in the 4/22 Boston Globe:
Antidote for 'toxic' politics, packed with its own venom Obama deplores attacks as he uses similar tactics
Whoops.
Barack Obama strode through the closing days of the Pennsylvania campaign reintroducing himself to voters as a good-government vigilante, ready to combat "petty, trivial, slash-and-burn, tit-for-tat politics" - while seeming to adopt some of those techniques himself. ...Obama's psychological portrait of Clinton - as a victim so spooked by the tools of her own destruction that she now wields them herself - appeared to carry a hint of self-description as he defended his own newfound ruthlessness.
Somebody hand that man a mirror.
corinne | 04.23.08 08:01 AM
|
I'm glad you brought this up. I tried to comment on the NYT's editorial, but comments were closed. Here's what I found amazing: An editorial in a major media outlet that gave an opinion without defining the terms. How do they define negativity? And then where's the back-up, based on the definition? And more amazing than that, 100s respond without knowing exactly what the writer defines as negative. How can the reader know if he or she agrees, at all?
Northshorewoman | 04.23.08 09:29 AM
|
The democratic primary is starting to resemble the dating habits of a high school girl. Dumping their long time boy friend (Hillary) for another guy (Barry O) only to find that the more her family and friends get to know the "new" guy the more they dislike him. "You just don't know him!" the girl screams at anyone who dares to question his love for her. "He's wonderful and you just can't see it because you're a fool!" Of course all the family and friends want is the girl to get back with the old boy friend that everyone seemd to like but since that bridge had been burned long ago the yound girl makes herself belive that things will work out in the end. In the end however, they get married and no one shows up to the wedding (i.e. the general election in Nov). PASS THE POPCORN PLEASE!
Rob in NH | 04.23.08 10:21 AM
|
Your high school boyfriend analysis denies several possibilities. The girl may have a reason to dump the old boyfriend that the family doesn't know. How about an abusive relationship. The more people get to know Obama, the more they seem to like him. Anyways, It's more important that the new relationship works for the couple than it is to have lots of people show up for the wedding. How about whitney and bobbie? So the scenario sounds good but is filled with what if's.
freddie mckinney-cook | 04.23.08 04:41 PM
|
Your high school boyfriend analysis denies several possibilities. The girl may have a reason to dump the old boyfriend that the family doesn't know. How about an abusive relationship. The more people get to know Obama, the more they seem to like him. Anyways, It's more important that the new relationship works for the couple than it is to have lots of people show up for the wedding. How about whitney and bobbie? So the scenario sounds good but is filled with "what if's".
freddie mckinney-cook | 04.23.08 04:42 PM
|
Of course there's nothing negative about lying-oh,excuse me,"misspeaking","misstating","and "misremembering" multiple detailed accounts of a Bosnia venture dressed with sniper fire.However you slice this bread, she has had more trouble staying straightforward and honest than her opponent.Why do we as a nation continue to avoid the blatant reason Sen.Clinton won places like Ohio,California,and now Pennsylvania?There is a huge internet campaign supporting a movement to keep the black man out of the White House.I guess calling Pennsylvanians "bitter" was far worse than "misspeaking" in this country.
chello weathers | 04.23.08 08:09 PM
|
Finally, when I read the article in the Times I breathed a sigh of relief that someone else could see through what she is doing and continue to do but that "woman" has no shame, none, and she will say and do anything to keep this going to see where it ends up as long as she is still in the race if he falters big time she takes over and she cannot believe or rather she and Bill cannot believe that they have been outsmarted by Obama, during the first debates she looked at him like "what in the Hell are you doing here" but they started realizing that this was a man to really take seriously but by then he had overtaken her. She can't even run the campaign without going broke constantly, I really have to turn off the t.v. because if I hear her voice one more time I am going to scream. Let it be over soon.
hb | 04.23.08 11:12 PM
|
All three current contenders for the White House stink. Where are you, Jack?
pita | 04.25.08 03:50 AM
|
All three current contenders for the White House stink. Where are you, Jack?
pita | 04.25.08 03:51 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
