NY Times Editorial: Hillary uses Karl Rove playbook

The New York Times editorial page editors endorsed Hillary, and now they criticizing her Karl Rove tactics:

April 23, 2008
Editorial
The Low Road to Victory

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.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race.  It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad -- torn right from Karl Rove's playbook -- evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," the narrator intoned....

No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think, it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and they are doing their best to make voters forget it. And if they think that only Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they're wrong.

After seven years of George W. Bush's failed with-us-or-against-us presidency, all American voters deserve to hear a nuanced debate -- right now and through the general campaign -- about how each candidate will combat terrorism, protect civil liberties, address the housing crisis and end the war in Iraq.

It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind with they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.


Poll
Should Hillary Drop out of the race?
Of course. Yes. Immediately.
She should wait until she loses in NC.

Votes: 12
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


If that is an editorial (2.00 / 2)

with approval of the editor and/or the editorial board, they just lost a reader- although, I really should have stopped reading them when they lied us into war-
by linc on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:53:35 PM EST

LOL (2.00 / 1)

So they're lying us into war, staying silent in the aftermath, and then hiring one of the most vocal and often corrected proponents of the war (Kristol) meant nothing so long as their only word on the primary was the Clinton endorsement?


by highgrade on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:36:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If that is an editorial (2.00 / 1)

You're supporting Hillary and you are deriding the dissemination of false information about Iraq?  She erroneously said that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda:

"He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_ 101002.html


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:52:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When is Obama going to win a primary (2.00 / 2)

in a big Democratic state where he doesn't live?

Oh.

There are no more primaries in big Democratic states.  

Oh.

He lost all of them (except for the state where he happens to live.)

With regard to your poll, don't count on Hillary dropping out.  It ain't gonna happen.


Another Hillary Supporter for Obama!
by Beltway Dem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:54:26 PM EST

Re: When is Obama going to win a primary (2.00 / 0)

Honestly, doesn't the notion that Hillary has won in states like NY and CA, and Obama in IL for that matter, have little bearing.  Swing states, well, that's different.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:09:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am so embarrassed (2.00 / 1)

that the front runner for my party's nomination seems constitutionally incapable of winning primaries in Democratic states.


Another Hillary Supporter for Obama!
by Beltway Dem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:23:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am so embarrassed (none / 0)

Swing states matter, for the rest your embarrassment is the least of our worries.  We have a presidency to win.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:30:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am so embarrassed (none / 0)

Actually, we have settled the nomination yet.


Another Hillary Supporter for Obama!
by Beltway Dem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:36:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clarify for us (none / 0)

what you meant by "constitutionally incapable"?


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:31:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clarify for us (none / 0)

It's an ordinary turn of expression that essentially means, "by his nature."


Another Hillary Supporter for Obama!
by Beltway Dem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:37:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am so embarrassed (none / 0)

He has won plenty of Democratic states: MN, VT, CT, WI, ME, etc.  Not to mention a boatload of swing states.


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:55:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When is Obama going to win a primary (none / 0)

I don't matter

Sez Hil


by wrb on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:27:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But I thought Hillary said (none / 0)

Pennsylvania was her home.  She's a "Hometown Girl."  No wonder she won!


by Dumbo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:30:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But I thought Hillary said (none / 0)

Well, golly, I guess that's the advantage in having so many home states.


Another Hillary Supporter for Obama!
by Beltway Dem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:38:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is the same N.Y. Times that endorsed her (2.00 / 2)

Were you whining about that when it happened too?

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.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction.



"we have the most radical president we have ever had, leading our country right now, and he is completely uneducable." - Seymour Hersh
by Lefty Coaster on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:08:30 PM EST

Self-interest... (2.00 / 1)

The most persuasive argument they can offer her...


by Dumbo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:31:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Editorial: Hillary uses Karl Rove pla (none / 0)

With all due respect there is an almost identical diary already posted.  Net etiquette?


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:14:41 PM EST

But who played Rove first? BO!!! (2.00 / 1)

Paul Lukasiak reports:

"Is it a timing thing? Because all the Democrats, including Obama, did whatever they could to "scorch earth" Hillary's chances starting in September. I don't know if people just forget about it, or don't think it matters, but Hillary Clinton was running a relentlessly positive, issue oriented campaign through last September -- in fact all the candidates were up until that point. But no one was getting any real traction -- Hillary's numbers went up all summer, and Obama's went down, Edwards couldn't get media and languished in third place, and there were another half -dozen "WHO?" candidates.

Running positive against Clinton wasn't working, so everyone, including Obama (except for Richardson) went negative on her -- attacking her relentlessly to drive up her negatives so they would have a shot.

So is it just the timing? Or have people forgotten about that.

And, when it comes to "scorched earth" campaign tactics, nothing beats the "swift-boating" of the Clinton on the race issue in South Carolina by the Obama campaign and its supporters. And it was "swift-boating", it was a big fat lie that Clinton was running a racist campaign, and the accusation made no sense; given the demographics of South Carolina, why would Clinton choose to start running racist then?

So again, I ask, have people just forgotten how we got where we are, or is it a question of timing? Is it okay to pull sh*t early in a primary season, but not later because of the potential impact it will have on the general election?"


by CoyoteCreek on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:15:39 PM EST

Re: NY Times Editorial: Hillary uses Karl Rove pla (2.00 / 1)

The media hates Hillary.
This editorial is not surprising judging by the fact that Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert and Frank Rich write nothing but hit-pieces against her every day.
by kingsbridge77 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:19:03 PM EST

This is the part of the media that ENDORSED her. (2.00 / 2)

In fact, it's the biggest paper to endorse her.  And they are saying, "enough is enough."


by Dumbo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is the part of the media that ENDORSED he (2.00 / 0)

The NY Times has trashed Hillary since the endorsement. Just because they endorsed her during that day doesn't mean the NY Times is a pro-Hillary paper that now suddenly realized she's not the best candidate. It's always been against her. They were the same ones who overhyped the Kazakhstan mining story.


by kingsbridge77 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:14:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Editorial: Hillary uses Karl Rove pla (2.00 / 1)

F*uck them; I am sorry for the terrible language, but this was a big win. When someone spends 3-1 and still loses by 10 points, this is big!! NYT is just bitter because they are mad that their "chosen one" lost. What about the negative stuff that Obama was playing with?


by American1989 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:20:15 PM EST

Re: NY Times Editorial: Hillary uses Karl Rove pla (2.00 / 3)

Their 'chosen one' was, in fact, Hillary.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Hillets let the media decide! (2.00 / 1)

Just stop her from making sleazy dishonest distortions for the benifit of the Bushies, that would be enough.


by wrb on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:31:01 PM EST

Re: O lets let the media decide! Just like in 200 (2.00 / 1)

I suppose we should all be grateful that you've posted at least one whole (if broken) sentence to follow up on your stimulating opening line of thought. Namely, "Whaaa!".

This is especially true considering that your responses to the other two diaries on this subject consist, in their entirety, of the following:

"Oh Boo Hoo!"
"Oh Boooo Hoo..."

Such deeply incisive and thought-provoking rationale - cleverly disguised as grade-school comebacks - really MUST find expression in their own diaries. Think of all the empty space you could fill with various and sundry permutations of crying sounds, no doubt a skill you specialize in.

What's more, these would probably rival most of the recommended diaries here for substance, anyway.

Promise me you'll think about it?


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:51:34 PM EST

do you need a tissue? (none / 0)

seriously do you?


by tarheel74 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:39:11 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.