The N.Y. Times has harsh words for Hillary Clinton

Newspaper editorials don't carry the clout they once did, back in the heyday of print journalism (and even then, the punch packed by opinion writers was usually more imagined than real). But every now and then, an editorial becomes more than just obligatory reading for good government types. That's likely to prove the case with this morning's lead missive in the New York Times.

It's headlined "The Low Road to Victory," and it aims to disabuse Hillary Clinton and her allies of any notion of basking in the Pennsylvania primary results. Here's how the Times summarizes what happened there:

"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."

Barack Obama's flacks could hardly have been more pointed (though he's also given a wrist slap as the piece continues).

It's not like the paper has a vendetta against Clinton. It endorsed her as the best Democratic presidential choice earlier this year (here's that editorial) and backed her two successful Senate runs in New York.

Our guess is this new take on her will generate a bit more buzz than the others.

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[hammerdown]

Hillary sinks to a new low with her campaign tactics. Credit should be given to Obama for taking the high road. He will make a fine president for America. The struggle will continue long after he is elected. The dirt and filth that has become part and parcel of American politics will not render easily. Racism, greed and small minded selfishness places stains upon the landscape just as surely telltale stains upon a dress betray a family and a nation.

[ScottL]

Hilary is so negative and Rove-like that if she wins the nomination, she will definitely lose the affluent, educated voters as well as many blacks that would feel disenfranchised by the democratic party

[Wreit]

I just hope that the Delegates and Superdelegates make sure they make their decision are based on fair play and integrity. If in fact these Republican Cross-Overs are helping Hillary for the sole purpose of undermining Obama, and the Democratic Party then the Delegates and Superdelegates are the only ones that can “effectively” do something about it through their votes. I am not raising the Red Card but I am definitely bringing to everyone’s attention that this sort of illegal activity seems to be a very real possibility. If such dirty politics are being practiced then the Delegates and Superdelegates should send a clear message that this “Illegal Activity” will not be tolerated. Thank you very much.

[loefflersh]

If the negativity of Hilary wins, many democratic voters will feel disenfranchised and walk away from the party in November. I certainly would. Hilary and the Clintons are so divisive that they will never be able to solve problems in the Middle East or work constructively with the Republicans. I do not agree with McCain on issues, but I can respect the man, just as I do Obama. For the Clintons, I have no respect - they have not earned it.

[John]

Your article, like that in the NY Times is having less of an impact each day. We're considering the sources. Even more important, you have lost the respect of America. We trust you can't report the truth. You see, in spite of the hateful media against the Hillary campaign that is out there, in spite of all the money spent by Obama to get lies and hate propoganda out there, possibly supported by Oprah who owns a lot of the media, the strategy to attack Hillary, and promote Obama is backfiring - even though he's outspent everyone 3 to 1. He can't buy his way to the white house. People are tired of the lies. They're seeing throug the lies. They've caught on to the media It's over. Republicans and Democrats are uniting to ensure the truth is revealed; it's not the kind of uniting Obama was hoping for. By the way, hear he may get some of his money from overseas. Also heard Rezko's pal may blow the whistle, he's talking to the Feds.

[jacilyn]

We get it: you media guys all love Obama, and hate Hillary, and it's just so infuriating everyone that we will not vote the way we're instructed to. So stamp your foot; nobody voting for Hillary cares about the NYT any more. It is the media that keeps taking the low road. Not content to simply report the news, today's media outlets decide what the outcome should be, then do anything it can to make that happen. Well, the NYT isn't very beloved in Indiana. Clinton is RIGHT to keep on fighting - and she speaks for ME when she questions Obama about his terrorist friends and his hatemongering preacher, because I want that dealt with BEFORE the general election (when Republicans will indeed go after him, and all the faux Democrats will pretend to be astonished that these issues really do matter to most Americans).

[me]

Very interesting, I completely agree with your analysis of this strong contradictory bias.
This morning I note that my comment sent in to the Times about the editorial you note referring to the chasm between the NYT's endorsement of Hillary Clinton and it's ever increasing nasty headlines was not printed. The disclaimer I received notes that the NYT has the right to moderate comments, blah, blah.
I am disillusioned with the Times.

[Thomas T Snow]

Hillary may have not lyed about Bosnia.

There is an article that Claims to have proof that Hillary did not lye about her experinces in Bosnia.

The LA TIMES website with the article is:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/clinton-bosnia.html

This next web page is the results of a You Tube site search using the words “Hillary Clinton Bosnia underfire.”:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Hillary+Clinton+Bosnia+under+fire&search_ty

My question is: Does this new/old evidence, if true, change the dynamic about whether Hillary is trust worthy?

[Ed]

It is very dissapointing to know that there are people out there who would vote against their own interests. To vote for a candidate not only who engages in destructive and negative tactics in a campaign but one who has deep compromises with K street. A candidate who despite claiming she is for the people, get air time in networks like fox news. One who sells out her self respect and dignity to old enemies willing to contribute to her campain over future favors. One who voted for this war, without even reading the bill that took us to it. What an ignorant, obtuse bunch of twits we are. I am ashamed to be an american this morning. I can only take comfort that I dont live in Pennsylvania.

[keith]

Well, once again the msm is totally ignoring the other viable candidate -

RON PAUL!

It's a big, fat conspiracy.

[Mike]

Hey Ed, ummm do you realize that FOX news is the most watched cable news network? So I guess when Hillary goes on FOX she is reaching the people. The majority is not represented by news networks such as MSNBC so take your far left wing and fly away.

[mariann]

Hopefully Clinton becomes the Nominee because Obama is too nice, intelligent and gentleman-like. If you think the Obama and Clinton fight has gotten ugly, you probably haven't seen nothing yet! The PA exit polling showed that if Clinton is the Nominee, Obama supporters (94%) would be willing to sit it out in November (may be not such a bad decision after all). Clinton doesn't care if it gets "dirty" with the Republicans because she is willing to sell her soul if that means obtaining the Presidency. It's not about her Solutions for the Nation, it's about HER!

[Ellie]

I think whoever wrote the editorial (whoever it was was too weak to post their name with it) is obviously one of Barack Obama's nasty supporters. I hope the paper receives a huge back lash from Clinton supporters for running it. I think it's crappy and negative itself. You would think the New York Times would take that so called "high road" themselves. Instead of allowing Hillary her WELL DESERVED WIN after being ridiculously outspent they have to slam her for using tactics that Barack's campaign have been using from the beginning. From someone that has followed this since the beginning I saw how they used Bill Clinton's comments against him, I saw how they tried to make her out to be a dishonest liar from punjab. When she of course fights back she gets this horrific back lash from everyone that I think is appalling and ridiculous. This is a competition people-- IF YOU CAN TAKE THE HEAT GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN...BOO HOO OBAMA BOO FRIGGIN HOO. GO HILLARY!!! Ignore this lates stab in the back.

[silverspoon]

Like it or not there won’t be a final state vote to satisfy the delegate threshold for either candidate. A split Democratic Convention scenario is highly unlikely and the prospect of Clinton folding her hand is also unlikely. It would seem, as strident as the discourse has been between both campaigns and the public “commentary” here and elsewhere, that there remains only the sobering illusion of (gulp) a joint ticket. How else would the base constituency of nearly half of the democrats (Hillary supporters) be reconciled? It is a final outcome that won’t, at first, be a warmly embraced resolution for either camp as the long campaign has produced buffeting animosities on both sides, but realistically any other way is a more troubling prospect. Obama will need to concede to having “the politics of the past” as his running mate and Hillary will need to recognize that second place doesn’t put her at the top of the ticket. It’s a union of necessary convenience that we and they need to accept and it could be a symbolic reference point in current and future foreign diplomacy.

[jennifer potenciano]

it's easy for anyone to pontificate on anything under the sun. it's fun for any person to lambast somebody from his high horse. but try to get off such high horse, & do some dirty, hard work on the ground, like doing a little research on one's object of derision--& the reality, the bitter truth sinks in.

fairness demands more than cheap talk. at times, it is a quid pro quo thing, giving as much as you're getting.

that is obama's quandary. he started off like he were some crusader on his high horse, slaying every dragon he sighted, every 'monster' he came across with, arming himself with his much-vaunted allegedly righteous political agenda, and wrapping himself with his insufferable holier-than-thou conceit .

yet he forgot to kill, firstly, the demons within himself. (know thyself, the great sage, socrates, adivsed us eojns ago.)

subsequent, even past, events have shown him to be not the lily-white, clean-as-a-whistle, spotlless reformer that he initially painted himself to be.

read the expose on obama by jonathan kaufman of the wall street journal; or the news feature on obama's canard about his fight against lobbyists, when he helps himself to their wallets & lines his pockets w/ the same dirty money he supposedly detests. or read on about the in-depth reportage on obama's long-time carousel with shady characters whom during sunny days he once regarded as friends.

(surely, if you ponder on these highly revealing articles, you wouldn't say these writers are mean-spirited, fiendish obama opponents out to do him in, politically, would you?)

& then the bitter truth about this veteran chicago-trained illinois politician hits you like a wrecker's ball in the face. obama is the consummate machiavellian, dr. jekyl/mr. hyde politician that he publicly refuses to care to admit, though his deeds--& even utterances, sometimes subconsciously--prove its veracity.

hiding behind the veneer of a world-reforming do-gooder, obama succeeded, for a while, to pull most people's legs. till this very minute, not a few doubt he is a certified liberal out to change america & the ways it is ordered. even in the snobbish intellectual, supposedly liberal circles in mainstream media, obama has succeeded in cultivating this political persona.

yet the facts speak for themselves.

i have bad news for you, obama die-hards. obama isn't just what he flaunts himself to be, but its opposite, a dyed-in-the-wool, typical opportunistic, machiavellian politician who'll use every trick in the book to get what he wants.

for instance, his favorite shibboleths, his constant refrain on "change" and "hope" were proven to be just tired, shopworn, rehashed political cliches that he used in his olld illinois days as a local politician being trained in the art of demagoguery & dirty politics.

i remember reading somewhere hitler's lesson that, to succeed in politics, one must first of all, be a glib-tongued speaker, a well-polished orator who can sweep people off their feet. when hitler spoke, it is said that his audience got into a trance, spellbound by the power of his words.)

thus, when journalists write stories about obama's quirks of character, or point to the serious inconsistencies in his political track record, or when a few critics of this consummate illinois politician take him to task, is it such a big bother to ask his fanatical, reverential followers not to slay the bearers of bad news?

for doing so makes these fanatics habitual and biased suckers for everything that obama says or does.

in this atmosphere, how can there be rational thinking & debate on his alleged advocacies? how can one expand the universe of discourse if the demigods of the much-vaunted freedom of speech & of the press prescribe prior restraint or self-censorship, when they outright label any unfavorable dissertation on obama as "distractions," "divisive," "unfruitful," & completely "negative," parroting those tired obama buzzwords?

but such is the law of nature, such is how life progresses. by the power of conflicting, adversarial opinions in the free market of ideas, one arrives at the truth--& what's best for society.

i have always believed that had this virtue of intellectual honesty been evident before september 11, 2001, the fateful twin towers american tragedy would not have happened. (as an aside, i thank my lucky stars that my mother was lucky enough to have visited the twin towers just a day--september 10, 2001--before it got "obliterated."

seen in this light, the world, especially the peace-loving peoples of the world, have much to thank the WASHINGTON POST for publishing, in toto, the side of the hamas as enunciated by one of its top officialsm dr. al-zahar, in the op-ed pages of its april 17, 2008 edition.

for subsequent events proved that such noble act had brought some pressure on warring parties (israel & the fatah, too) in the middle east to bear on their peoples' desires to forge a genuine peace pact among their leaders. how many more killings could be averted if we at least let "warriors" get their wrath off their chest through ventilation in the press of their gripes?

i should say the press ought to apply the same rule-of-thumb in vetting hillary clinton & barack obama in their contentious democratic nominating contest. nothing should be made sacrosanct in this national, nay international debate, not barack, not hillary, not any of their utterances. for to favor one over the other smacks not only of bias, but of disservice to the people's desire for intellectual honesty &, farfetched as it may seem to be, to our quest for an authentic peace throughout the world, so that the recurrence of tragedies such as 9-11 & the holocaust or the rise of fascist regimes (asin those the 3rd world today) may be prevented. ****

[og]

Well I'm not convinced that the news media has a positive bias towards Obama. Conveniently for the Clintons it doesn't look like anyone is following their Friday (4/25) court date in Los Angeles where they (both Bill and Hill) are facing charges of campaign fraud.

[N.E. BodybutHillary]

Hillary Clinton is Richard Milhouse Nixon low. She, her husband, and her daughter have all been proven to be bold face lying to the public and subsequently denying their lies as though the public is at large, moronic.
The blame for Hillary's continued participation in the race for the democratic nomination does not solely fall upon Hillary though. Those who continue to vote for her whether it be out of racial or sexual bias are to blame as well. These persons are not so much offering support for a potential candidate as they are putting forth roadblocks for the popular candidate. Shame on all of you.

[keith]

I think whoever wrote the editorial (whoever it was was too weak to post their name with it) is obviously one of Barack Obama's nasty supporters.

Ellie - all editorials are unsigned, even the LA Times. IT's not the position of any one person, it's the paper's position as an organization.

I think back to the days when HRC was the presumptive candidate, wow how the mighty have fallen. There really is no trickery or deceit, the majority of voters just like Obama better. And for the record, he's closer to closing the deal than she is, what a funny thing for her to say, it illustrates the weak logic guiding her campaign.

[Tim Gallien SGT USMC]

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
You all are arguing about nothing. None of you understand that elections are all for show. Your government is owned, you are owned. What you think you know, what you thought you belived is all a lie. You sheeple are so ignorant, that you have all come to the point where there is no thought. You all (KNOW). And knowing is the single greatest hurtle to real knowledge and truth. You are all the blind leading the blind. For those who may read this and think...what the hell is this person talking about, Google ZEITGEIST, this will get you going in the real direction. I only say these thing because I care. If I didn't, I wouldn't say anything at all. Enlighten yourselves. I have lead you to water.

[Paul R]

It's telling that many of the folks who have posted comments so vehemently against Obama have failed to spell check. Just a thought...

[Herm]

Senator Clinton's big victory in Pennsylvania proved to be a devastating defeat for liberal news/medias. She depunditized the so called pundits and made them looked like a vindictive propagandists. People who voted for Clinton may possibly noted an injustice against her by news/media and party leaders throughout this year. Editorial of NYT is an example of a defeated negative propaganda machine(like MSNBC) that is kicked down by voters who saw Clinton a more of a leader than follower.

[BJ]

The Media/Press, TV analysts & commentators need to STOP imposing their views on voters!

The bias towards Obama has been unparalled!!! Even when he loses, you guys spin it so that he still wins.(?) CNN & MSNBC may as well be known as the OBAMA NEWS NETWORKS!

Understand that come November, it is not the number of delegates, the number of primaries, the popular vote that will win the election... ELECTORAL VOTES come from the biggest States, and WHO won those?

Obama is a good man, and he will have his turn... but CLEARLY, he is NOT electable THIS November vs. John McCain.

[diana]

This is exactly why we lose elections, everyone needs to grow a pair. You can go ahead and blame her for all the negativity but atleast she was upfront about it and you knew what she was doing. Obama likes to hide behind this bs of new politics but guess what he was down there in the mud just as much if not more than her. Only problem is everyone only reported on her negativity against him. I'm not denying that she went negative but guess what we are choosing the next president, if he cant take the heat get out of the kitchen