April 23rd, 2008
10:26 AM ET
12 years ago

NY Times slams Clinton's 'negativity'

 Clinton celebrates her Pennsylvania victory with Gov. Ed Rendell.

Clinton celebrates her Pennsylvania victory with Gov. Ed Rendell.

(CNN) - Fresh off her victory in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton is facing a stinging rebuke of her campaign tactics from her hometown paper, The New York Times.

In the paper's Wednesday edition, the editorial board which endorsed Clinton's White House bid earlier this year says the New York senator's "negativity" is doing "harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election."

"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," the board writes.

The paper finds fault in Clinton's latest campaign ad, which includes an image of Osama bin Laden, and asks, "Who do you think has what it takes?"

"Mrs Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11," they write, adding that it is a tactic that is "torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook."

"Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning," the editorial also states. "She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama."

The paper also says Barack Obama deserves some of the blame for the negative tone. "He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton’s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics."

But the editorial makes clear the paper thinks most of the blames lies with Clinton. "If she is ever to have a hope of persuading [superdelegates] to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs."

soundoff (917 Responses)
  1. kathy

    The NY Times needs to shut its big, fat trap. If poor little Obama can't take the heat, then he should just bow out now.

    Everyone can throw everything they have against her–Hillary is one tough woman. And she is hands down the BEST candidate we have to beat McCain.

    April 23, 2008 12:26 am at 12:26 am |
  2. Ben

    Status quo will not get out of the race easily. This should not amaze anyone. This country is not made of dynasties!!!

    April 23, 2008 12:26 am at 12:26 am |
  3. Duke

    I support Obama, but Clinton won, plain and simple.

    Clinton is also going to lose the nomination, plain and simple.

    She cannot catch Obama. The math does not work, period. I understand her hanging in there so to speak. She is hoping to un-nerve Obama into making a catastrophic mistake (which is possible), but barring that, she is done.

    April 23, 2008 12:27 am at 12:27 am |
  4. VoteRobot.org

    Hillary's tactics are so vile, it makes me want to leave the party all-together. Barf!

    April 23, 2008 12:27 am at 12:27 am |
  5. tzxc

    She won in nursing homes, big deal!

    April 23, 2008 12:27 am at 12:27 am |
  6. Speechless in Seattle

    "A house divided"...keep supporting Clinton's tactics and you can count on three desk chairs in the Oval Office when the Billary's plus one produce drama of a proportion that will will only exponentially increase the daily dirt being slung now.

    Thank you NY Times; I hope you're an inspiration to other editorial boards across the country!

    April 23, 2008 12:27 am at 12:27 am |
  7. dale in indiana

    I DON'T KNOW WHO COULD BE MORE NEGATIVE THAN THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN. THEY'VE BEEN PALYING THE THE RACE CARD SINCE THE GET GO. THE NYT NEEDS TO SLAM THE OTHER SIDE FOR A WHILE OR ARE THEY AFRAID THE OBAMA CAMP WILL START WHINING SOME MORE....

    April 23, 2008 12:27 am at 12:27 am |
  8. Stephen, Oregon

    So what's the over-under on the New York Times switching their endorsement to Obama after Indiana and NC when she throws the whole kitchen at him?

    April 23, 2008 12:27 am at 12:27 am |
  9. cencoastjess

    what treaties we don't have treaties we broke them all

    April 23, 2008 12:27 am at 12:27 am |
  10. Rulex

    Hillary needs to drop out even though she won tonight because that is not going to do her any good.

    April 23, 2008 12:27 am at 12:27 am |
  11. Disgusted

    Her negativity disgusts me. The democratic party lost me this week and I will register as an independent.

    April 23, 2008 12:28 am at 12:28 am |
  12. mark

    Can NY times explain why they endorsed Hillary in the first place. Is that because of connections?

    Also, who wrote Carl's book? Maybe, he hired Senator Clinton secretly. Again, she can do anything to knock her opponent down?
    That quality alone will bring much more division, bitterness, hatred in this country and the world.

    April 23, 2008 12:28 am at 12:28 am |
  13. Wagner

    The job of President, requires the politicians to look at events like 9/11.... I think Hillary had a good point... She also shouldeve mentioned the effects of FARC/Che and other crazies....

    April 23, 2008 12:28 am at 12:28 am |
  14. emily

    I thought she gonna have 20% lead with all the machinery she had in pa and the way she attacked Obama with the help of the media.
    Time to say to hell with the Clintons. We gonna have to change our politics!!

    April 23, 2008 12:28 am at 12:28 am |
  15. Vic

    Well he was never going to win there anyway. It was just a way for him to drum up more supporters and let people there know what he's made of. He's done a good job, since she's only won by slim margins. I think one think people fail to understand is that it's not just the President, but all those who work with them that brings about change. Every great company had a great leader who inspired them, not those who claim to know everything and do it themselves. Still cheering for Obama and not at all disappointed with how things turn out.

    April 23, 2008 12:28 am at 12:28 am |
  16. mindy

    No matter who I support, although it should be obvious, my question is WHY ARE ALL YOU PEOPLE SO FULL OF HATE??? I'm sorry that all of you feel you need to act that way, no matter who wins or loses! We're supposed to be on the same side, right?

    April 23, 2008 12:28 am at 12:28 am |
  17. NJ voter

    Clinton needs to stop spinning this win as if she did something dramatic. She had governor Rendell, she was well known, she 100 mayors endorse her, she had the enitre establishment in her corner, a 30 point lead in most polls. This win should be a reflection of how democrats are getting tired of her .Look I'll admit she had all of the demographics for the state and OBAMA reduced her lead by a third.

    MEET US IN NORTH CAROLINA and INDIANA

    April 23, 2008 12:29 am at 12:29 am |
  18. Fairminded

    It's preciously because of idiots like NObama, D. Stevenson, Jay in Kansas, etc. who can't tell accurate ads from smears that Hilary continues to win in States where there are a lot of uneducated people.

    Of course Obama has to outspend Clinton. He's up against a name-brand. The reality is monetary investment can't change biased people's mind, although it can still persuade open-minded people that Obame can bring about real change in government because he can break through bipartisanship.

    April 23, 2008 12:29 am at 12:29 am |
  19. meg

    Now that is over. What next?

    April 23, 2008 12:29 am at 12:29 am |
  20. Yolie

    Hillary is winning among the elderly because they want to see a woman in office no matter what. Actually before they croak. Also older white women are extremely prejudice. But the world's resource is the younger generation. They need to make the change and make a politics of Unity.

    April 23, 2008 12:29 am at 12:29 am |
  21. GO HILLARY

    the only reason she is deemed so negative is b/c she is a woman.

    sexism at its finest.

    MEET ME IN INDIANA!!!!!

    April 23, 2008 12:29 am at 12:29 am |
  22. CNN lover

    If you are so sick of the media and making up stories or how CNN favors one person of the other, watch a different network you dummies. You aren't though because nothing else compares to the quality of CNN.

    April 23, 2008 12:29 am at 12:29 am |
  23. Critical Thinker

    So how long will it take James Carville to come out and call the New York Times a Judas for endorsing Clinton, then rightfully criticizing her?

    April 23, 2008 12:31 am at 12:31 am |
  24. Nod

    The NYTimes has become irrelevant a long time ago !!

    HATS OFF TO YOU HILLARY R. CLINTON!!!

    Congratulations Senator Clinton; no matter how the Obama camp and some in the MSM spin this; one thing is true: YOU WON DEFINITEVELY!! YEAH !!!!!

    April 23, 2008 12:31 am at 12:31 am |
  25. Ladyleo

    Hillary will not stop going negative because people who are negative keep supporting her.

    April 23, 2008 12:32 am at 12:32 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37