Back in late January, the New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.
Tonight, they kinda took it back. Here's an excerpt from their lead editorial in tomorow's newspaper:
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.
Cases in point:
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.
If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: “We would be able to totally obliterate them.”
Read the whole thing -- it's not an unendorsement, but it's close.
Will, take your goggles off. Apparently, Pennsylvania voters are not tired of it; if they were, Obama would have won, and won decisively. I suppose that it comes as a shock to you, that the NY Times has turned pro-Obama. Have you read their opinion columnists of late? sydney77
Clinton's negativity and fanning of her base's prejudices by smearing Obama with false claims he has a relationship with Farrakhan were rewarded by uneducated whites. Unfortunately, we have many of them in PA. She's tearing it all down. I guess at least McCain will cut my taxes, but I'd rather have Obama in the White House to do some healing for this country. Sweatheart
Also, take note that the NY Times overlooked the fact that Hillary was waiving the "noun, verb, and 9/11" flag earlier than her last ad. She beat that horse during the ABC debate travesty. She's the Rudy of the Democratic party. Sweatheart
Despite my pseudonym, I'm an Independent, not a Democrat. That means I don't vote for a party, I vote for the better candidate. I voted twice for Bill Clinton and I voted against George Bush. If Hillary is the nominee and she asks whether we want four more years of Bush, I would have to reply, "Better that than four more years of Clinton." amabobama
Even Philly Mayor recognizes without a timely Cliche and a teleprompter Obama is Just a Freshmen US Senator with 170 Famously Missed Votes in his State Legislature's Days ! Philly-d-kidder
I think the voters were tired of it; Obama, despite all the negatives still cut down Clinton's lead from over 20% to less than 10%. However, I don't think Obama's negatives limited his momentum, but was more of Hillary making a go for it all attitude. The one thing Rachel Madow of MSNBC was really hitting was that many of the middle-class voters liked about Clinton is her constant deception and shiftiness and going the low-road. What others view as her negatives, became her positives. Clinton altered these attributes by spinning them and solidfying her base by labeling herself as a "fighter" and someone who would stand up for the middle class against big, bad business and free trade. The high-minded politics of Obama doesn't play as well. I think the middle-class want a Dem of that type; the Dems of the last 20 years have been perceived as selling out their interests to big business and corporations. As such, a fighter would be going against those trends. Publius- "Apparently, Pennsylvania voters are not tired of it; if they were, Obama would have won, and won decisively." ............. True enough, but what's encouraging to see is that the younger voters aren't fooled by it. That doesn't bode well for the future of Rovish politics, now does it?
If some are under the delusion that Obama can heal partisan differences, think again; sweetheart only opines to the disconnect of both, and shows his/her predjudice. Neither potential Democratic nominee can do so, Obama less so than Clinton. 9/11 is not a bad thing for most people; it was a horrific event. I find it curious that you would base your post on that position. What is the problem? Take off your far left goggles, and see reality. Your person lost tonight, so be it. sydney77
As to the future of Rovish politics, Axelrod has masterminded Rove; give me a break. Obama is the teflon candidate; young voters-is that all that you have to hang your hat on? Obama still did not do as well in PA, as other contests. Think of another plan of attack; HC bested Obama in almost all demographics, short, African Americans-surprise! $12 million dollars, and he could not pull it off. Again, take off your goggles. Your person lost; why can he not put her away? sydney77
"True enough, but what's encouraging to see is that the younger voters aren't fooled by it. That doesn't bode well for the future of Rovish politics, now does it?" Nice idea, but in fact all young voters start that way - idealistic and wanting to change the system. Then they get out in the real world, and realize that, like it or not, it's a dog-eat-dog world, nice guys finish last, etc etc. Like it or not, politics as usual will long outlive all of us. what is truth?
The argument that four more years of Clinton would be worse than for more years of Bush is wrong. If Clinton wins, it will actually be four more years of Bush. The extreme she went to in order to show off her "experience" credintial, namely the Bosnia snoper story shows how weak she actually is. She will let the generals walk all over her rather than force any change in course. She'll do just what Bush does, say she'll go along with what the generals suggest rather than go out on a limb. She'll have no coattails to bring in more Senators or Representatives so she'll probably still only have a one seat hold of the Senate, and that one seat is in the hands of the guy who will probably give the keynote speech at the Republican convention. She won't be able to risk a real "fight" over anything. And when she has the inevitable mid term loss of the Democratic majority, she won't undo any of the abuses of executive power that Bush created. Since when have the Clintons fought for anything but themselves? SteveMG
Its been reported more than once that if the Republicans are to lose in November, their strong preference would be for a Hillary victory. They see an Obama victory as the greater repudiation of all they've done. That speaks volumes to me. yobill626
Sorry, but I meant that specifically Bush & Cheney prefer a Clinton victory. An Obama Preseidency repudiates what they "accomplished". yobill626
Good post Steve. I think you are right. Although Hillary will say different things than Bush, it will be politics as usual. This country is in trouble. Fresh ideas would be great but unfortunately, the people in this country are afraid to do anything differently and therefore will have no one but themselves to blame for the course we are currently on. Too many people won't trust a young black man. It's a shame really. Hard to believe after all we have been through that racism continues to hold us back. James TL
Obama cannot win where it counts! Accept It! If not, McCain will be the President. We know too much about Obama. And he knows too little about running a country. Core Democrat
- Atrios
- Kiko's House
- Suburban Guerilla
- Booman Tribune
- All-Spin Zone
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Afro-Netizen
- Rowhouse Logic
- MyDD
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- iFlipFlop
- CorrenteWire
- upyernoz
- Tattered Coat
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- Slacktivist
- Citizen Mom
- The Next Mayor
- Philly Future
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Young Philly Politics
- Phillyblog
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Phawker
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Keystone Blog
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- BlankBaby
- Above Average Jane
- Phillyist
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- The Clog
- Josh Marshall
- Daily Kos
- Juan Cole
- Oliver Willis
- Andy Borowitz
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- BuzzFlash
- Raw Story
- Cursor
- Crooks and Liars
- Swing State Project
- Kevin Drum
- Talk Left
- AmericaBlog
- Hullabaloo
- Mad Kane
- Think Progress
- Jesus' General
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Majikthise
- Echidne of the Snakes
- David Sirota
- Glenn Greenwald
- TBogg
- Fire Dog Lake
- Taylor Marsh
- Matthew Yglesias
- Jon Swift
- Drudge Report
- Beer Leaguer
- The 700 Level
- Dick Polman
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Shallow Center
- Philling Station
- Phillies Nation
- A Citizen's Blog
- The Good Phight
- Romenesko
- Editor and Publisher
- Pressthink
- Buzzmachine
- The Inksniffer
- Media Bloodhound
- Eat the Press
- Mickey Kaus
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Blinq
- The Corner
- Instapundit
- Andrew Sullivan
- Free Republic
- James Taranto
- Blonde Sagacity
- ScrappleFace
- Blogorrhea
- February
- January
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008








