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

NY Times slams Clinton's 'negativity'

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/04/22/art.clintoned.ap.jpg caption=" 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. Leo

    Hillary is correct, Obama is the new Neville Chamberlain, stupid and naiive. There is nothing he has done in his life proving his capability.

    April 23, 2008 08:15 am at 8:15 am |
  2. Phil

    Then the Times should withdraw their endorsement.

    April 23, 2008 08:15 am at 8:15 am |
  3. liz haque

    We all know PA is conservative, but now I know voters in PA are stupid.

    April 23, 2008 08:15 am at 8:15 am |
  4. Former Clinton Supporter

    These are the same kinds of scare tactics that turned me away from her. The Clintons have proven themselves to be very calculated and very low. Her newest ad is poor politics and in extremely poor taste, but look how it worked!

    America needs to stand up to the fear that so many politicians breed.

    OBAMA 08!!!

    April 23, 2008 08:15 am at 8:15 am |
  5. Carol Kelly

    If this country elects Hillary we will have sunk to a new political low. It seems she will do absolutely anything to get elected. Her campaign tactics disgust me. If she is on the Dem ticket, Mr. McCain gets my vote.

    April 23, 2008 08:15 am at 8:15 am |
  6. Jim in NYC

    Glad to see that my "hometown" paper is not afraid to report the truth! I am baffled that there are some people in this country who cannot see through the spin of the Clinton circus. Her basking in her own victory, which was just over 50% of democrats in Pennsylvania fails to acknowledge that this was her home turf, of sorts, and that a year ago, she was expected to win the nomination hands down. Senator Clinton's calculating attempt to change the rules to her advantage are what compels me to continue giving my support to Obama, He appears to be light years ahead of her in wisdom, intellect and integrity. Don't fool yourself Senator Clinton into thinking that you have any advantage over Senator Obama.

    April 23, 2008 08:27 am at 8:27 am |
  7. K

    What a bunch of losers in pennsylvania. You got tricked, hoodwinked, and bamboozeld by hillary clinton, you bought what she was selling and you as a state will be worse off for it, all you did was prolong the cancer that is hillary clinton!

    April 23, 2008 08:27 am at 8:27 am |
  8. JC

    When is all over and done, America will continue to rob her children of their rights and pretend that they care – we see the "wink" and ask why should we continue to press forward, when we have acknowledged the fact that America had many children of colors but is only concern with the one that steals, lies, betrays, provide injustice rather than the one that works the hardest to please and be accepted.

    !! America shame on you for continuing to choose between your children!!!!

    April 23, 2008 08:27 am at 8:27 am |

    well people can say what they want she won 80 more delegates there are 23 supper dele in that state that should go to her by obamas claim that they should vote the way the state did that brings her 103 dele votes closer to him obama and we still have n c and ind and 7 more states to vote [if obama will let those states count] and not find an excuse not to like he did fl and mich i think she will win nominee

    April 23, 2008 08:28 am at 8:28 am |
  10. Mary - Independent

    The New York Times is putting themselves in the "mud-siinging"
    category. Just because Clinton won PA, this paper is all upset –
    get over yourselves NEW YORK TIMES!

    April 23, 2008 08:28 am at 8:28 am |
  11. TL

    Talk about outspending all you want. Obama had a six week presence in PA while Hillary has been campaigning there for quite some time now. Why don't you compare overall dollars people have spent campaigning in the state, not just this "primary?" Also he cut into her 10 percentage points in a state she was supposed to dominate.

    The only thing this victory did was drag along her slim hope.

    April 23, 2008 08:28 am at 8:28 am |
  12. Say no to the monarchy

    Clinton will do anything to win and she cares nothing for the American people. She only cares about getting her and Bill back in the white house.

    More importantly, why do older people continue to support her say anything and do anything ways, yet criticize Bush for the same tactics?

    April 23, 2008 08:29 am at 8:29 am |
  13. Christy Delarber

    I can't believe anyone would vote for Clinton. She is crooked politics revistied. Proven in 3 lies about dodging bullits is just the icing on the cake of her dishonesty.

    April 23, 2008 08:29 am at 8:29 am |
  14. R. Farina

    What a waste of time and money this whole excersise by the Democrats will be!!! When the time comes for the general election, the majority of independents in middle America will not vote for a woman or an African-American with a Muslim name. Hopefully the Democrats will come to their senses at the Convention and draft Al Gore. Otherwise it will be John McCain easily.

    April 23, 2008 09:01 am at 9:01 am |
  15. therealist

    The true colors of hate from the left are coming out for of America to see.., and it ain't pretty.

    April 23, 2008 09:30 am at 9:30 am |
  16. P Graber

    Hillary was just pointing out what the new President of the United States will have to handle, 9/11 just happened to be something that happened in the past. She did absolutely nothing wrong in bringing it up.

    April 23, 2008 09:44 am at 9:44 am |
  17. PA VOTER

    I voted for Obama...ok hillary won but barely.....she's going to gain what 5 delegates at the most. Don't forget Hillary supporters she needed LANDSLIDE VICTORIES for it to make it a difference.

    I on the other hand did all i could to get people to vote for Obama, some white people(sorry for race card) just will not vote for a black man with a muslim name and I hate it.

    OBAMA FOR PREZ 08!!!

    April 23, 2008 09:49 am at 9:49 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