MyDD :: NY Times Endorsed, Now Denounces, Hillary

NY Times Endorsed, Now Denounces, Hillary

by dback, Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:16:19 PM EST

In January, the New York Times announced it's endorsement of Hillary Clinton -- with a caveat:

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband's administration and the so-called permanent campaign.

The Times today called in it's endorsement:

The Pennsylvania campaign . . . was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it. . . . 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.

Al Gore said of George Bush I in his 1992 speech in acceptance speech of the VP nomination: "It's time for them to go."

It's now time for Bill and Hillary to go since they no longer have anything but negatives to offer.

Tags: New York Times, Hillary Clinton, negativity (all tags)

Permalink :: 12 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: NY Times First Endorsed, Now Denounces, Hillar (none / 0)

we have had like 4 dairies on this

but kudos on having a bit of their endorsement no one else did that :-P

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:17:14 PM EST

Re: NY Times First Endorsed, Now Denounces, Hillar (2.00 / 0)

After reading all the diries about Wright and "bitter" I thought that's the way it works around here.

It's not much of an endorsement when they all but retract it.

Face it, Hillary. It's over.

by dback on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:21:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They still think she's the best choice, they say.. (none / 0)

They feel that she has not risen above the attacks as they wished she would, but from our vantage point here, actually, I think many of us were glad that she responded (finally) to Obama's campaign's attacks on her.

The New York Times still endorses Hillary as the better choice of the two.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money

by architek on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:34:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's obviously (2.00 / 0)

over your head.

Face it, Hillary. It's over.

by dback on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:54:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Endorsed, Now Denounces, Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Well its one thing for a media outlet to endorse a candidate.

ITs a complete other thing for a CANDIDATE to support a media outlet, especially one designed to annialte your political party and ideology!

Unable to rec or rate

Read this: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/15/1427 30/254

by GeorgeP922 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:25:20 PM EST

Re: NY Times Endorsed, Now Denounces, Hillary (none / 0)

Funny thought, they are the only ones that are even close to being fair to her.

by Dave B on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:43:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Endorsed, Now Denounces, Hillary (2.00 / 1)

When you reach the point in your political alignment where the only news outlet which you consider 'fair' to your candidate is Fox News doesn't that give you at least a moment's pause to reassess the underlying dynamics of the campaign? Just for a moment, at least? It's clear as a bell to the rest of us.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:50:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NY Times Endorsed, Now Denounces, Hillary (none / 0)

But do they denounce AND reject her?

"No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." -Hillary Clinton

by fugazi on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:26:08 PM EST

No, and I don't think they have seen the attacks (none / 0)

we see here in the blogosphere, so they may not understand fully WHAT she was responding TO.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money

by architek on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HIstory. (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 Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:01:59 PM EST

Re: HIstory. (none / 0)

":Hillary Clinton was running a relentlessly positive, issue oriented campaign through last September"

Anbd then she started running a relentlessly vacuous and negative camapign?

In December Obama began to seriously threaten her lead and that's when Bob Kerry came out with his remark about Obama's middle name and told the lie about him attending a radical muslim school.

Hillary ran a positive campaign only so long as she didn't feel threatened.

Face it, Hillary. It's over.

by dback on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:49:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Beginning to see the irony (none / 0)

Does anyone else see the irony in an Editor that pretends to decry negativity but devotes and entire column to it?

by bobbank on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:40:06 PM 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.