Gray Lady demands Hillary be quiet and start losing
posted at 7:40 am on April 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Even before the scope of Barack Obama’s loss became apparent in last night’s Pennsylvania primary, the New York Times editorial board published a screed attacking Hillary Clinton for remaining in the race. Called “The Low Road to Victory”, it demands an end to her campaign even while she handily wins major states. Actually, it’s not that they want her to quit, but that they want her to stop competing against Obama so hard — apparently conceding that Obama can’t win in a tough race:
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.
Voters are getting tired of it? Not by any spin of the evidence. The turnout in Pennsylvania apparently tripled the previous presidential primaries, although usually Pennsylvania doesn’t factor into the selection process like it does this year. Not only that, but in case the New York Times missed it, Hillary won. Voters in the Keystone state can’t have been all that tired of Hillary’s campaign style.
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.
She won by ten points, which the Times may have known had they not written this before the results were known. She had a +6 in delegates based on the popular vote, but she’ll win most of the 60 delegates based on districts, thanks to her almost-shutout throughout all of PA except Philly. Moreover, the big margin and Obama’s inability to win undecideds should change the calculus of the 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.
Obama outspent her 3-1, and he had narrowed that gap considerably prior to her going “negative”, which is to say that she ran comparative ads criticizing his lack of experience and his claims to have not taken a dime of lobbyist money. After that, the Crackerquiddick comments, and his terrible debate performance, she reversed Obama’s momentum and won handily.
What was that about “self-interest” again?
Let’s skip to the end:
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.
Do New Yok Times editors ever do research? Superdelegates can’t do anything now to end the race because they weren’t created to end a tie. They exist to overrule the popular vote when disaster looms, and to that end, they can change their minds at any time before or even during the convention. Even if every superdelegate were to stand up now and declare themselves for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has four months to change their minds, according to the DNC rules.
And just how would it look to Democrats in upcoming states to see Hillary shoved aside after winning Ohio and Pennsylvania by 10 points each? It would look like Obama couldn’t beat her in a tough but fair contest, and he had to be rescued by the party establishment. That, combined with his apparent refusal to meet Hillary in another debate, makes it look like Obama is a cream puff. Do Democrats really want to throw such a delicate and fragile candidate onto the top of their ticket for a general election?
Apparently the Times does. Bookmark this page when it comes time to campaigning against John McCain to see if they hold Democrats — or themselves — to the same standard as Hillary Clinton.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Hey…is anyone else having a problem viewing Hot Air in Firefox? Looks OK in IE still, but all the proper formatting is gone in Firefox.
flipflop on April 23, 2008 at 7:44 AM
I had that problem on one of my computers a couple of weeks ago (the others were fine). The problem resolved by itself in a couple of days.
Valiant on April 23, 2008 at 7:49 AM
That editorial is just an embarrassment. The New York Times proudly endorsed Hillary before the New York primary. It’s not like they didn’t know who or what she was then. To now complain that she is just being who she always was is incredible.
I live in Pennsylvania and I saw all those ads and interviews with both candidates. I’ve seen tougher ads in state Senate races (in fact, we did here in 2006). If this is what liberals call a mean campaign, my God, we are going to beat the living crap out of them in November.
rockmom on April 23, 2008 at 7:50 AM
Weird…a while ago, I had a problem viewing HA in IE, but Firefox always worked.
We ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
JetBoy on April 23, 2008 at 7:54 AM
All of these attempts to knock one or the other Democrat out of the picture by the MSM establishment is because as soon as thie Primary race is over,the candidate can do what everyone in their party hopes: Shut up for a few weeks. McCain is able to avoid the glare of the spotlight while quietly raising money and convincing the GOP constituency that he is not the death of the party, while Dems are constantly proving the rule of Democrat politics:
If you put them in front of the camera long enough, they’re bound to say something stupid.
Spc Steve on April 23, 2008 at 7:54 AM
That’s been happening to me with IE7 for about 2 weeks or so. I’m also having trouble viewing my comcast email but the comcast people think I’m crazy because they doon’t see any problems. Maybe it’s internet traffic.
jmarcure on April 23, 2008 at 7:54 AM
No problem here with Firefox.
Back on topic: Operation Chaos is working beyond belief! Just ask the board of the NYT. :-)
TwinkietheKid on April 23, 2008 at 7:54 AM
I don’t have a link to the numbers, but according to what Karl Rove just said on Fox, Hillary has now overtaken Obama in the popular vote.
Pablo on April 23, 2008 at 7:55 AM
flipflop, try clearing your cache. I was having that problem a couple of weeks ago and that did the trick.
Pablo on April 23, 2008 at 7:56 AM
Voters are getting tired of it? Not by any spin of the evidence.
There certainly is evidence of it. Or didn’t you see the exit polling that had 68% of Pennsylvanians of the opinion that Clinton unfairly attacked Obama?
Yes, Clinton won, but she’s been leading Obama by large margins in Penn all campaign, and Obama actually did close the gap.
And the turnout argument? You basically rip it to shreds yourself. Penn doesn’t usually count… PLUS, this election has generally seen a big spike in turnout.
A majority of Dem voters in Penn didn’t like how Hillary campaigned… even some who voted for her. There’s most definitely evidence to back the NYTimes claim.
I will give you credit for choosing an apt photo though. your agenda against the NYTimes really is childish.
Tom_Shipley on April 23, 2008 at 7:58 AM
Endorsing & trashing at the same time. They did it for McCain, now for Hillary. Surprisingly, NYTimes unendorsement will work wonders with REAL people - not the elites as NYTimes would hope.
Interesting times ahead.
Anita on April 23, 2008 at 7:58 AM
And a third of those came out and voted for her anyway? Right, because they’re tired of it.
Pablo on April 23, 2008 at 8:07 AM
The “Obama is a wimp” mantra will be hitting hard on him.
Of course, he’s a wimp - a pathetic pussy, serial liar and third-rate mediocrity - but when he starts losing the Dem’s male vote thne he will be toast. Lightly browned, of course..
TexasJew on April 23, 2008 at 8:10 AM
And only 45% actually voted for Obama. Why is that?
Ed’s right; Hillary was tanking in PA before the last debate; I saw polls putting Obama up by 5%. After the last debate, which was perceived as the worst “attack,” judging by the almost hysterical reaction of O’s supporters, Hillary apparently gained 15%.
Nichevo on April 23, 2008 at 8:11 AM
Ed, you are on a roll today! Mega, mega dittos!
SouthernGent on April 23, 2008 at 8:13 AM
I use Firefox and it’s working fine for me.
pilamaye on April 23, 2008 at 8:14 AM
Operation Chaos baby! Hell no, she won’t go!
Sometimes the formatting is completely hosed for me in both IE and firefox… happening more often recently with me.
rightside on April 23, 2008 at 8:17 AM
To the Times, the personal is political — By accepting the mantle of defender of the bitter, gun-toting, church-going yahoos, Hillary has angered the editorial board of the paper in a way she hadn’t before. Her act of confirming the elitist snobbery of the left is an affront to the elitist snobs across the street from the Port Authority Bus Terminal (can’t say on West 43rd Street anymore), who have no problem with Obama’s words in San Francisco but are angered both that they got out, and that anyone technically on “their side” would confirm that Barak meant what he said.
Hillary hasn’t yet fallen into Ralph Nader-Joe Lieberman territory at the Times, and committed an act so heinous she becomes a permanent source of scorn and ridicule on the left. If she were to back out now, all would be forgiven in any future political battle or personal self-promotion. But Hillary’s still betting she can win the nomination, and then force the Times to take her back into their good graces by giving the editorial board and the newsroom no choice but supporting her or John McCain in the fall.
Yes, the Times could actually solve that problem by doing something unique, like running non-partisan coverage of the general election. But the Times, as a New York paper, thinks of the GOP-Democrat battle the way Yankee fans think of the Red Sox (or as a partial owner of the Boston team, they think of the battle the way Red Sox fans think of the Yankees) — there’s no way they can keep their Republican hatred out of this race.
jon1979 on April 23, 2008 at 8:21 AM
Typical libs, pushing for everyone else to surrender.
How about the NY Times surrender? It’s hemorrhaging readers and ad revenue.
Time to call it quits, Gray Lady. Set the example for gutless surrender, so we can learn how it’s done.
NoDonkey on April 23, 2008 at 8:23 AM
It’s got to be bittersweet to know that Hillary owes the crossovers for her victory. Thank you Crossovers!!! Thnak you Rush!!!
CynicalOptimist on April 23, 2008 at 8:23 AM
To suggest that the Times Editorial Board is staffed with Gays, Metrosexuals, and Girlymen would be putting too much of a macho spin on it.
there it is on April 23, 2008 at 8:25 AM
“Can I just finish waffling?”
fluffy on April 23, 2008 at 8:26 AM
I think what sent the NYT over the edge was Hillary’s last ad that dared to invoke 9/11. The Times seems to be willfully trying to pretend that 9/11 never happened. They still seem to have no idea why it happened or what to do about it that fits in with their liberal worldview, so they want everyone to just make it go away. Hillary had the effrontery to remind voters that there are bad people still out there who want to kill a whole lot more of us. That’s a no-no in TimesLand.
rockmom on April 23, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Since when is a 10% victory inconclusive???
revolutionismyname on April 23, 2008 at 8:28 AM
try clearing your cache
mred on April 23, 2008 at 8:31 AM
The sheer arrogance of that statement is incredible. The idea that the NYT speaks for voters is laughable and insulting at the same time. The disdain for the democratic process is equally expected and revolting.
the “voters” know they had a chance to end the campaign last night and the chose to have it continue. Now it’s time for people to stand up and tell the NYT to STFU.
TheBigOldDog on April 23, 2008 at 8:40 AM
So when does Maverick ask her to be VP?
Hening on April 23, 2008 at 8:43 AM
VOX POPULI…unless, of course, you are a Democrat Voter!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on April 23, 2008 at 8:45 AM
I count four major grammatical errors in the first four paragraphs. How can you take the New York Times Editorial Board seriously if the quality of their writing would get them snickered at if they posted it on FreeRepublic?
gridlock2 on April 23, 2008 at 8:48 AM
Greatest news I have heard all day is Hillary leads in the popular vote when counting FL and MI. This election is going to be “stolen” no matter how you look at it. Go Hillary!
bopbottle on April 23, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Mrs. Clinton got almost twice as many votes in this primary as any previous Democrat primary contestant. To say the voters of Pennsylvania do not like her reqires a willing suspension of disbelief.
gridlock2 on April 23, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Is that possible?
dont taze me bro on April 23, 2008 at 9:06 AM
I have been offended by the numerous comments by the press and Obama that she has to step aside. She doesn’t and these calls for her to do so come across as sexist. Earlier on, Obama also made allusions that she is too old. Comments like these do not go over with older white women and older white women vote.
Blake on April 23, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Hey… I’m pumped… this is the best cat fight I’ve seen….
CynicalOptimist on April 23, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Sorry! No offense to cats!
CynicalOptimist on April 23, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Operation Chaos was a success.
Spanglemaker on April 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM
The Grey Lady would be better off DEMANDING that the voters do as she says, not as she endorses.
argos on April 23, 2008 at 9:28 AM
I’ve said here before.
Cachefly is sending the wrong CSS at times. They are randomly presenting mobile CSS to IE and Firefox.
What’s the point of using cachefly for a small CSS file anyway. Plus this file could be 50% smaller . Just delete all the spaces and carriage returns from the file and host it yourself.
faraway on April 23, 2008 at 9:34 AM
NY Times:
Stop whupping the Messsiah, you mean, mean girl!
Hillary:
Heard your circulation was lower than Obama’s pastor.
profitsbeard on April 23, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Spring brings Obama
Like Cherry blossoms blooming.
Too soon faded petals fall.
ronsfi on April 23, 2008 at 9:45 AM
I’d buy the Gray Lady here in Minneapolis but we no longer line the bottom of our cat box with newspaper so their services are not needed at this time…
sabbott on April 23, 2008 at 10:15 AM
The same newspaper that ran a disgraceful smear job on McCain is now ripping Hillary for going negative on O’Bambi.
You stay classy, NYT.
infidel65 on April 23, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Hmm…could we have McCain/Clinton (R) vs. Clinton/McCain (D) in the general election?
James on April 23, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Oh, very nice.
shibumiglass on April 23, 2008 at 11:05 AM
I should say, very shibumi.
shibumiglass on April 23, 2008 at 11:06 AM
NoDonkey - Excellent point. Why doesn’t the NY Times throw in the towel? They should just get it over with and sell out to Rupert Murdoch.
Django on April 23, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Gotta love the NYT pontificating on the opinions of poor Pennsylvanians. Probably written by Pinch hisself…
mojo on April 23, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Thanks
ronsfi on April 23, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Of course the NY Times is just itching to take the low road itself against John McCain. Then it will be ok.
mustng66 on April 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM
“Oh sure she won the one poll that actually matters… BUT…”
Obama can’t close at this point in the game despite outspending her 3-1… he’s DOA come November.
Chuck Schick on April 23, 2008 at 12:52 PM
We don’t nee to wait. Just look at the two hit pieces they ran against McCain. They’ve smeared him twice with nothing but stale innuendo and that’s okay… but she mentions that the next president will have to deal with terrorism and that’s out of bounds?
Spolitics on April 23, 2008 at 1:11 PM