April 23rd, 2008
10:26 AM ET
13 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. Bitter Tommy in St. Louis

    Well, the New York Times isn't saying anything we didn't already know.

    April 23, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  2. libby

    The NYT is actually posting an editorial letter from the Obama campaign. Why is the CNN reporting it is the "New York Times?"

    April 23, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  3. Ryan

    For everyone claiming that the NYT is just supporting their darling, remember that they endorsed CLINTON! But they have eyes like everyone else and are just calling it as they see it. Everyone but the Hillbots can tell that She has been the one interjecting negativity into every aspect of this race.

    April 23, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  4. Richie,pa

    I commend Obama. He didn't have the machine that Clintons had in Pa. Let's see if she will win with that margin in Kentuky, Indiana, and the rest of the contests. Obama should not allow them to destroy him. It shouldn't happen and shouldn't be give all the air time Hillary has been having. The democratic party is heading to a wreckage.
    Someone gonna say I told you so. I don't know who gave Howard dean that job!

    April 23, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  5. margie

    The New York Times is irrelevant.

    April 23, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  6. Austin TX

    The best quality we should look for is personal "integrity." Clinton will do anything to win. I don't like her meanness and dishonesty.

    Her lie about Bosnia was a "mistake"? Why a deliberate lie that was told three times is a "mistake"?

    I know you want to continue your royalty status Bill and Hilary at all cost... I am concerned that so many people are fooled by your never delivered promise of free healthcare for all. I've read your lips enough.

    April 23, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  7. Di

    were the ny times this outraged when gwb and the republicans used fear tactics the last 2 general election campaigns? what she did was NOTHING compared to that...... what gives?

    April 23, 2008 12:08 am at 12:08 am |
  8. Richard

    It's impossible for Clinton to gain on the delegate count Obama already has.

    Get over it people.

    Obama gets the nomination.

    April 23, 2008 12:08 am at 12:08 am |
  9. Brian

    CNN should post the Wall Street Journal Editorial by Dorothy Rabinowitz as well.

    Fair is fair CNN.

    April 23, 2008 12:08 am at 12:08 am |
  10. s.b.

    Sorry, how exactly is a double digit victory inconclusive when your opponent outspends you 3:1 and shatters all campaign spending records?

    April 23, 2008 12:08 am at 12:08 am |
  11. Art from Texas

    How is it that a 10 point win becomes a "thump"(CNN) when she lost 10 points off her lead? The Democratic leaders should finish this soon, or I'll take Hillary's hint and vote for McCain. Thanks "best political team"; you just lost my vote

    April 23, 2008 12:08 am at 12:08 am |
  12. Amy

    Thank you, NY Times. No matter how she tries to spin it, she went very negative in this campaign and is hurting the party. Not that she cares about the party. She knows it's over, we all do. She's trying to keep it alive, but it's dead. Obama will win the nod, unless she steals it which would be a huge blow to the party. The supers need to step in.

    April 23, 2008 12:08 am at 12:08 am |
  13. fran

    Just donated again to Hillary. The more the big guys...and I do mean guys, try to push her out of the race, the more they make me and others like me, support her even more than before. SHE WON by double digets and she's going to be our next president. And call me crazy, but let's hope the next president rolls up her sleeves and goes after the person who is responsible for 911. It's not fear tactics to remind this country that he's still out there and we have to make sure the person in charge this time around, goes after and gets him.
    GO HILLARY!!! All the way.

    April 23, 2008 12:08 am at 12:08 am |
  14. mimi de la cruz for OBAMA





    April 23, 2008 12:09 am at 12:09 am |
  15. s.positive


    April 23, 2008 12:09 am at 12:09 am |
  16. Charles

    A good win for Hillary. If she does get the nomination I will vote in November – for John McCain.

    April 23, 2008 12:09 am at 12:09 am |
  17. John in KY

    Hey NYT politics are a bit negative at times so don't subject yourself to the negatives unless you also have quite a bit of positives on your side also! (Can't take the heat stay out of the FIRE!) leave the lady be!!!

    Go Hillary 08!

    April 23, 2008 12:09 am at 12:09 am |
  18. Go get 'em Hillary!

    Hillary Clinton won fair and square tonight and she's doing a fine job. Political advertisements are notoriously controversial and, well, if they get the job done, they are successful. Let's not focus on advertisements and the supposedly extreme negative tone of the campaigning. If either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee they're going to have to take a lot of negativity and this is good practice and is NOTHING compared to what the Republicans are just waiting to unleash. Frankly, the fact that Sen. Clinton is still standing strong is truly impressive. When will these two brilliant candidates of historical proportions realize that the best bet for both of them is a Clinton-Obama ticket in '08 followed by an Obama presidency 8 years down the line! That's also our best bet to get this country its prestige, glory, and respect back! Democrats Unite! Clinton Obama!!! Hill-Bama '08!!!

    April 23, 2008 12:09 am at 12:09 am |
  19. Robert

    Small win for HRC, its still a long road, and all this stuff she is bringing out, remember what goes around comes around.

    April 23, 2008 12:09 am at 12:09 am |
  20. Jane, NC

    Senqtor Clinton has been no more negative than Senator Obama. Stop saying she has! You know, the public really does have minds of their own; we don't necessarily buy into something because you say it.

    April 23, 2008 12:09 am at 12:09 am |
  21. Sue

    Spn all you want to folks but if you don't have the money it can't be spent. Or should I just say Hillary outspent Obama on Super Tuesday, that's why she is broke, but where did that money get her.

    April 23, 2008 12:09 am at 12:09 am |
  22. Brett

    The reason she is viewed as so negative is the fact that the media refuses to talk about Obama's own negativity. Why? Because all Obama has to do is say something like "I don't play those type of politics" or "This is typical DC....we need to change this," and the media completely forgets that he ever said something negative in the first place. Essentially he just has to say "No I'm not negative" and the media eats it right up and leaves him alone. This election season has been chock full of amazingly horrible coverage. Its time for the media to drop favoritism and start reporting. Journalism 101 – Leave your bias out of your reporting!!!

    April 23, 2008 12:09 am at 12:09 am |
  23. A4Obama

    Where is mayor Nutter in that picture...he's already irrelevant after delivering crucial black votes to Hillary? Nutter, fight for what is yours....you put your neck out for your girl, she owes you big time. I don't think you were doing it out of the goodness of your heart when 65% of your town residents were for Obama. You go Nutter!

    April 23, 2008 12:10 am at 12:10 am |
  24. dallasiteforhillary

    Didn't someone hear say that a 10 point win and she has made it? She will net well over 200,000 in popular vote our of this ONE primary. THANK YOU PENNSYLVANIA!

    I know for sure there are people from earlier primaries knowing what they know now about Obama would like to change their vote.

    Going to donate to Hillary Clinton.

    April 23, 2008 12:10 am at 12:10 am |

    Cnn Stop
    We love Hillary
    We love Clinton
    Go Hillary
    No more NoBama

    April 23, 2008 12:10 am at 12:10 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