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. Anonymous

    She aint no lay!

    April 23, 2008 12:04 am at 12:04 am |
  2. matt

    and the psycho farthest left liberals are at it again, trying to hurt the perfect democrat.

    Obama filled my mailbox with EVIL FLIERS

    April 23, 2008 12:04 am at 12:04 am |
  3. Anthony

    There was another President with just one term in Congress before he became President. Lincoln, it is life experience that is important.
    Clinton's life experience is showing her true colors now, and it is a shame.

    April 23, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  4. ND

    Hillary's ads pale in comparison to those the Republicans hope to run against her this fall. Just look back to 1993 and you'll have a complete playbook: Travelgate, Whitewater, billing records, and other things that'll make Hillary's "heat" seem like a cool spring breeze.

    April 23, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  5. George

    The NY Times should just shut up. They have proven to everyone that they are not a journalist newspaper, just a political paper. They are so out of date.

    April 23, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  6. Bruce TX

    well after all CNN and the Electoral College , Gave us BUSH, Hum wonder if we can Hold them Liable, I say dissolve the Electoral College and Hold the Media Libel for there False reporting! and well after Primary CNN will be Pro McCain anyways!

    April 23, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  7. Xanadude of Velen

    The New York Times........the original Waffel Press!

    Hillary WILL be president!

    April 23, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  8. John, Marietta, GA

    Yes she won Penn, Uneducated white folks will never vote for Obama becasue "you know why", so to base a loss on some people's ignorance is unfair. We all know their Governor even said they would never vote for Obama. I am just glad 48 other states are different from penn and Ohio.....Two weeks to NC, and we have our nominee.

    April 23, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  9. Chris in Va.

    You had better watch out Hillary, the home crowd is on to you and you are going to need a job pretty soon. Then I guess you could always run for Senator from Pennsylvania, they have proved themselves worthy of Her Highness.

    April 23, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  10. david goldmen for OBAMA






    April 23, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  11. Bomb Bomb Bomb Hillary

    She seems a little to excited about this miniscule addtion to delegates. If she were really the woman she says she is why is she still behind? Why hasn't she got the nomination?
    Doesn't look like she ever will.

    April 23, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  12. N Kannan

    Bill and Hillary have successfully turning this campaign into one of race. That never fails, does it?

    April 23, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  13. HoMnn

    Women outweigh men 59%-41%, 15% potential edge, she only won by 5%. And most democratic men are whipped anyway.

    April 23, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  14. william pappas

    the ultra left wing just can't stand a woman or a Clinton winning anywhere–the NYT is a has been paper and carries little reputation of any note–it best days are behind it and it should stand up for their editorial nominee instead of ripping on her –get into reality ,the enemy is bush not the Dems

    April 23, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  15. Craig, Seattle, WA

    Poor babies... Can't little Obama take the heat???.... If not, maybe he shouldn't RUN!

    April 23, 2008 12:06 am at 12:06 am |
  16. Andy

    I can't wait to shop at the Manhattan Walmart in five years!

    April 23, 2008 12:06 am at 12:06 am |
  17. Mike from California

    And when you donate to Hillary remember.....she is 10 million in the hole. HA HA HA!

    April 23, 2008 12:06 am at 12:06 am |
  18. s.b.

    How exactly is a double digit victory inconclusive?

    April 23, 2008 12:06 am at 12:06 am |
  19. Michael G Ventura, CA

    To say Obama has "nothing to show for it" (money spent in PA)-Are you serious? Look where he came from -33% down! The popular vote gains she had tonight in PA will be washed away in NC and IN–The delegate gain was minimal at best. Perhaps time spent slamming Obama should be used on a Math tutor!

    April 23, 2008 12:06 am at 12:06 am |
  20. ArtC

    The NyTimes as well as other liberal media is so one sided in its critiques of Hillary and have become apostles of Obama. Mr. Obama is in some ways worse than Bush in that he's a bought and paid for politician and he's doing everything he can to win even tarnish the party and our once great leader Mr. Clinton. Obama can only wish he as one one hundreth of the leader that President Clinton was. But to his credit he's a great orator and he's at least not a dishonorable coward like Richardson is. His followers, are also delussional and unfortunately misguided.

    April 23, 2008 12:06 am at 12:06 am |
  21. john in sf

    Hillary has become a member of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" and I am thankful that the NYTimes realized their error in endorsing her. CNN, ABC and FOX (also perhaps MSNBC) are jumping up and down, because their profit margins would soar if pro-business Hillary were elected.

    Hillary is trying to get elected by exploiting low-information voters and some women who are voting based on gender. When Obama is elected, he will have won via African-Americans who are voting based on race, other African-Americans who are voting for the better candidate and the educated.

    Obama is the leader of the real Democratic Party. The Party of Roosevelt and Kennedy. Clinton wants to lead the Reagan Democrats and kill our party, and thus our nation.

    This whole process disgusts me. The country now rests on the shoulders of Indiana (because Hillary can't come back at all in NC like Obama did in PA, VA, DE, TX, OH, etc. etc. etc. This 9-10 point victory is one of the biggest of her campaigns and she got it via blatant misrepresentations of fact and calling Obama a Muslim.

    I'm becoming an EU citizen. This is ridiculous.

    April 23, 2008 12:06 am at 12:06 am |
  22. J Williamson

    Barack threw his own Grandmother under the bus to quell the "Rev" Wright controversy – using one's Grandmother as road-kill strikes me as the most negative campaign tactic in the history of American politics.

    April 23, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  23. Traveling Writer

    Why is this still even being called a race? If Clinton wins 68 – 32 percent in every remaining contest, she still loses by 4 delegates. That doesn't sound like a race to me!

    April 23, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |

    why don't you send a reporter to Florida and report on how they feel about NOT having their votes count!!!!!!!! Do something good for the nation vs. saying normal political sparring is wrong.

    I am sooooooooooo upset with you to accuse ME and MY STATE of being NEGATIVE-LEAD around.

    WE are smart hard working people who believe Hillary is the best candidate to beat McCain and run the country.

    I don't believe negative ads work, or fear mongering. IF YOU don't believe these are scary times, then get your head out of the sand.

    I'll never buy a NYTimes again~

    April 23, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  25. dAnnE

    Has anyone heard the phrase, you won the battle, but we are winning the war? How can the tide be turning we she was expected to win this battle? The bigger point is that Obama is STILL winning in every aspect. Hillary supporters, please think about this... would you really be happy if this was reversed and Obama was saying he is winning when he is in fact behind? Can we be rational for once?

    April 23, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 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