April 23rd, 2008
04:53 PM ET

New York Times blames Clinton for negativity

 Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.

Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

You could call it "an un-endorsement." An editorial in today's New York Times says Hillary Clinton is mostly to blame for the negativity in the Democratic race. This is the same newspaper that previously endorsed her.

Titled "The Low Road to Victory," the Times editorial argues that voters are getting tired of this competition which is increasingly mean, desperate and filled with pandering. They call on Clinton to acknowledge this negativity which is hurting her, Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and the entire 2008 election... and may also be part of the reason why she didn't win Pennsylvania by as large a margin as she could have.

The Times points out that on the eve of the primary, Clinton became the first Democrat to play the fear card and "wave the bloody shirt of 9/11." Clinton aired a TV ad that evoked Osama bin Laden, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis and the 1929 stock market crash – an ad described as being "torn right from Karl Rove's playbook." The Times writes that if Clinton has any hope of winning over undecided superdelegates, not to mention the voters, she "has to call off the dogs."

Exit polls from Pennsylvania suggest there's something to this. People say they are getting tired of the tone of the campaign and they think Clinton bears more responsibility for it, with two-thirds of Pennsylvania voters saying she went too far in her attacks.

Here’s my question to you: The New York Times blames Hillary Clinton for most of the negativity in the Democratic race. Do you agree?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Chris from Syracuse, Indiana writes:
There is no question Hillary has gone too negative. It's the only thing she has left. Her ego has gotten the best of her. She has put herself above the party, the country, and the American people. Here in Indiana we don't care too much for dirty politics and politicians who will say and do anything to get elected. Her campaign ends in Indiana guaranteed.

J. from New Hampshire writes:
That's ridiculous. Hillary did not make Obama sit in a church with Rev. Wright for 20 years, she did not make him sit on a board with an unrepentant terrorist, she did not make him utter the "bitter comments" and she did not make him stammer through their last debate. As far as playing the fear card, if you're watching that ad and aren't confident Obama is not the right man for the job, then you shouldn't be voting him. If you believe he is the right man, then it's not a negative attack – it's just an ad.

Scott writes:
I blame the media for being so negative in this campaign. They have been relentless in their attacks on Clinton and have blown out of proportion what few attacks the candidates have made on each other. Stop trying to create the news and just report it!

Steve writes:
The New York Times is being ridiculous. This year's Democratic primaries have been much less negative than past primaries. Nevertheless, Senator Clinton has only been pointing out the differences between herself and Senator Obama.

Mary from Pennsylvania writes:
As a Pennsylvania voter who just received tons of calls from both camps, I can say the majority of ones from Clinton were negative while none of the ones from Obama were. Both Clintons have jumped on every chance possible to make this race negative, while Obama has tried to stay above the fray.

Richard writes:
Jack, I do blame Hillary Clinton for the negativity in this campaign. What surprises me most is that so many voters can't see through the smoke and mirrors.

Filed under: Hillary Clinton
soundoff (141 Responses)
  1. Barbara in NC

    Jack – Her husband knows the answer to that – depends on what the word "blame" is.

    After all, he had a hand in teaching her how to turn truth into lies by switching the words.

    God help us all if the most sociopathic political couple in the world gets back into the WH.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:05 pm |
  2. Sam in Indiana

    You would have to live on a remote island with no access to technology to not blame Clinton for negativity in this campaign. The New York Times is correct. I have also noticed how a few days before each election Bill Clinton rears his head with a divisive comment. Yes, the Clintons are guilty as charged regarding negativity.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  3. Michael

    Hillary has definitely caused the negativity. It's she only way she can keep the attention off of her family's past. She's a peevish child who can only win by blaming others and complaining about how she's being mistreated. Grow up and go home Mrs. Clinton!

    April 23, 2008 at 2:12 pm |
  4. bk

    Obama is just as negative as Clinton, but the media overlooks Obama's and protrays Clinton as the villian. CNN and MSMBC have been doing this for over a year. The media should report the news fairly instead of supporting Obama.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:13 pm |
  5. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    Yes but what do we expect from the Clinton's. But according to her this morning she will continue to run a positive campaign. Just think about it shoud be the words to those yet to vote. Interjecting fear is still working.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
  6. Ron Mechanicsville VA

    Negativity? This country has a corrupt Government, Big Business sells us crap and lies about the products from Tag Body Spray will get you a girl to the Pharmaceutical Industry that will one day kill us all. We are in a War that was based on lies and have a Congress and Senate that does nothing unless someone benefits financially. On top of that, the New York Post has no credibility left, how can they blame anyone, really? Hillary Clinton is no more to blame from negativity in politics than you are Jack!

    Someday, someone has got to stand up and call it like it is and stop putting lipstick on pigs to sell them as swans!

    Politics is dirty, get over it! I for one admire the tenacity of Hillary Clinton, she has more balls than the majority of Congress! We need her in the White House.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  7. Eric

    Yes definately. She is giving creedance to right wing campaign tactics by repeating the fear mongering and misperceptions about people who are within 6 degrees of Obama.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:18 pm |
  8. sandy in Ohio

    I do think she has been more negative than Obama and she has pushed him off message. When she goes negative, if Obama doesn't respond in kind then he is labeled as weak and if he does respond she screams he's not about Hope just negativity. I'd like Obama to start talking like the party nominee and go after McCain on the economy and all the other issues facing the next President. Let Hillary and McCain roll around in the gutter, like all the old style politicians do.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  9. Bill



    April 23, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  10. J.D. in NH

    Absolutely. If she can figure out a way to associate Obama with Charlie Manson or Jack the Ripper, I'm sure she'll run an ad.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  11. Scott

    I think as more and more negative things come out about Barack's past in the media, that Hillary will then use it to her advantage. I don't think she has done anything to give John McCain an edge should Obama win the nomination because the stories about Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers came out in the news media before she used it against him and we know the Republicans will do much worse than she has done to him.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  12. Chuck in MO

    At the risk of being mistaken for a duck by this great hunter, she is.
    But she gets a lot of help along those lines from hubby, another great
    duck hunter.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  13. Jim from Michigan

    Jack, I have heard many adjectives describing Hillary, but uniter has never been one of them. The Clinton philosophy seems to be first divide , create a distraction then spin and conquer.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  14. Kathy/ GA

    Sounds like they are denouncing and rejecting her.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  15. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    Yes, Hillary Clinton is like a weapon of mass destruction detonating inside the democrat party. I didn't expect John McCain to do this much damage. With the negativity Hillary has created her first job on day 1 will be bridge building.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  16. Harold from Anchorage

    Yep, You can only fight innovation and sincerity with cynicism in our culture. Bill and Hillary will use any tactic available to grab that gold ring on the merry-go-round.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  17. ajks

    Absolutely! She pushed, pushed, and pushed Obama until he had to return in same sort of tactics. She is an abomination!

    April 23, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  18. Mark, Berwyn, PA

    Yes. Not sure I need to expand upon that. She is to blame, it is just a simple fact. She's basically admitted to it by bragging that she loves to 'throw the kitchen sink" at her opponent. She apparently gets some weird enjoyment from destroying someone else's credibility, yet God forbid if someone does that to her. Pathetic.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  19. Brian from Fort Mill, S.C.

    Of course. Even the Pennsylvania voters said that Hillary's attacks were mostly unfair. And they still voted for her.

    The problem is not Hillary being too negative, or Obama being too negative. The problem is that it works! We reward nasty, negative politics the way we flock to bloody, violent fighting matches.

    For instance, Mike Tyson is remembered for one thing: biting off Evander Holyfield's ear!

    We need to stop rewarding negative campaigning. But we're not going to do that, so we deserve what we get.

    My message to Barack Obama. From now on, no more Mr. Nice Guy. Take the gloves off, and let Hillary have it. Start by forgetting that she's a woman. If you hire me as your campaign manager, when I'm done with Hillary, not only will you win the Presidency, but both Hillary and Bill will have to sleep on the couch for another four years! And just to rub it in, I'll call them at 3AM every day!

    April 23, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  20. Gigi in Alabama

    No I do not agree with the New York Times. If they would do just a bit more investigative reporting, they would find that Obama is just as negative.
    He tries to make people think that he is taking the high road, but all the time his subordinates are doing his dirty work for him. He may think that is the smart route . . .I think it's rather cowardly.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  21. Tired of America

    The New York Times hit the nail on the head, but everyone else says it's a good race. She's proven she will do anything no matter how disgusting to win the race. She tells lie after lie and no one calls her on it. Then she throws some negative ad Obama's way and he has to spend valuable time discussing that instead of the real issues while people pretend like she can walk on water. I use to think either candidate was good for me, but after her display during this race, I'll be staying home in November if she is the candidate. I'm not playing this game of which is the worst evil, I just won't participate.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  22. Ann South Carolina

    Yes, yes, and yes again.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  23. MAP

    No, it's equal, it's just the media coverage that's not equal, so it appears that HRC is more negative...news junkies know better, it's just that sound bite crowd that gets fooled...too bad there are so many sound bite folks.....

    April 23, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  24. Scott L. - Wichita, Kansas

    I blame Howard Dean. Every time there is something of a problem, he has to step in.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  25. Shahrukh, Michigan

    Jack, Did you just use the words New York Times and Agree in the same breath? The Times is the most positive voice out there, correct?

    April 23, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  26. PS

    No. If you were pushed, shoved and knocked down by the media, what would you do? She is not being negative, much to the media's obsession, she is just trying to SURVIVE you all–

    She does have a genuine love for this country and definitely the credentials to run it.
    it still seems that it is still a man's world out there. Anyone who is female and still is undecided, do the right thing.
    All the power to her.
    Chapel Hill

    April 23, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  27. Mike S., New Orleans

    I agree that Hillary went more negative sooner than Obama, but let's face reality: Hillary's negative ads will seem like Valentines compared to what the Swift Boat party has planned. If anything, Hillary showed that she can get as down and dirty as Republicans.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  28. Larry, Ohio

    Jack,they are both guilty,and I'm loving it!

    April 23, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  29. Billy G in Las Vegas

    Jack, as the kids say "Well DUH!!!"

    Hillary knows that the only way she can win the nomination is to tear down Obama hence the Karl Rove style "Fear & Smear" from her campaign. their battle plan now is to dirty up Obama so badly that even IF he wins the nomination he will lose to McCain in November.

    that way she can run against McCain, who will be the modern version of Herbert Hoover, in 2012.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  30. don from canada

    Jack who would not agree with the New York Times. Everyone knows the a snake slings dirt from side to side as it slithers. Her campaign tactics are disqusting and prove once again that she will stop at nothing. She went in at 25 points ahead and came out at 10 and calls it a victory as only a Clinton would do. Destroy all for the sake of a Clinton we have seen it before from them and it will never change. Dirty politics – Shameful Hillary just Shameful

    April 23, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  31. Ruth in SC

    Absolutely! Hillary is the one down in the muck. After her insulting, low class "shame on you Barack Obama" she has reveled in negativity. I'll vote Democratic for Congress but if she is the nominee there is no way I can support her. Fortunately, it looks like it will be hard for her to overturn his lead.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  32. Raul from kentucky

    I agree with the NYT; however, I believe it is part of the game. What is not fair is that for the last 2 months, Obama has faught against Hillary, McCain, Bill, and even some republicants, but the media doesn't give him credit for it.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  33. marie in sc

    I definitely agree with the NY Times on this one. For months now, she has treated Obama on the same level as George Bush – or even worse. Clinton is so divisive that the Democratic party is solidly split to the point where I don't think either one will be about to pick up and glue back the pieces. This has been obvious for months now, but why did NYT wait until now to run their stories? Is it because now the delegate math shows that its almost a sure thing that Obama will get his party's nomination?

    April 23, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  34. Jenny


    This is Hillary Clinton after all. If she does not win the nomination I recommend a career in mud wrestling.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  35. Heather in Montgomery County PA

    Yes Jack, Hillary is too blame in the negativity in this primary campaign. As a parent we are always told to not reward negative behavior in our kids, yet in Pennsylvania we rewarded her negativity by voting for the candidate who goes negative. America needs a time-out! We need a time-out from all the debates that focus on petty negatives and not on the issues. We need a time-out from the campaigns about the small distractions and negative spin. We need a time-out so that we can remember that our Nation is hurting and our troops are at war!

    April 23, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  36. Jenny


    This is Hillary Clinton after all. If she does not win the nomination I recommend a career in mud wrestling.
    Atlanta Geprgia

    April 23, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  37. Debbie,NJ

    Of course we agree. Obama won't hit her back because he pledges to play a different kind of politics. I wish somebody would fight her back for him. His campaign can't even attack her because she'll start whining that his words don't match his actions. Here's an example. When she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!" But Obama can't say this. How about the delegates that left her for him.
    Tom Daschle , a former Democratic leader in the Senate
    Greg Craig, who served as special counsel to Mr. Clinton during his impeachment saga; Anthony Lake , a former national security adviser;
    Cameron Kerry, the younger brother of Senator John Kerry
    activists Mrs. Larson as well as elected officials,
    former Labor Secretary Robert Reich,
    Bill Richardson
    Dave Scott
    John Lewis

    How about the details of her lobbyist money or the other lies she told.
    Bosnia wasn't the only one. He can't close the deal also because of the media. Everything he says is scruntinized. She gets away with murder. I even heard someone say on the news that older people had more prejudices. If Obama or his campaign had said that they would be called racist. He also has the Rep. coming up against him at the same time.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  38. Jerry, Fayetteville Tennessee

    There's no doubt that she's responsible – she now has disapproval ratings higher than her approval ratings – yet still she wins. It's starting to scare me Jack.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  39. Clive Pollock

    Yes Jack, I agree, if she is sooo ready to be President on day 1 she should be addressing the pricipal problems (issues) facing the US
    and how she would solve them
    1. A 9,000.000,000,000 dollar debt.
    2. An educational system not even competitive with some EMERGING countries i.e India and China.
    3.Extraordinary fiscal and current account deficits which is weakening the US$ every day.
    4. National security issue #1 is the day that China decides to dump their trillion plus in US treasury paper on the Market and the dollar goes to zero

    Clive, São Paulo, Brazil.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  40. Efren

    Hillary Clinton put Osama Bin Laden in her commercials. The only purpose of that was to scare the public into voting for her.....just like George Bush did over John Kerry in 2004 and John McCain in 2000. Since when did Karl Rove become an advisor to the Clinton campaign? She should be absolutely ashamed of herself. This time around, I think the American people are going to look past these scare tactics. Then again, I said that in 2004 and 2000.....thus, the circle continues. God help us.


    April 23, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  41. Raul from kentucky

    We already agree that negative attacks is her only path to victory. Her pride is driving Democrats to another 4 years of Bushism.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  42. Cynthia

    The New York TImes article is right on point. The negativity coming out of the Clinton camp is really bad and the longer this goes on it is going to get worse. When she gave her victory speech last night I had to change the channel because looking at her was sickening. It appears to me that she feels if she can't win then she is going to make sure Obama can't as well.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  43. Brian, Cincinnati

    Of course I agree. She knows she can't win the nomination so she's gone to plan B...

    Destroy him so that John McCain can win and she can run next year, all the while running around shreaking "I told you so!"

    Brian, Cincinnati

    April 23, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  44. Greg ...Cabot AR

    Of course, in order to win elections, you either have to offer something better than your opponent has to offer....

    which she can't...

    or try to make them look inferior...Clinton stooped to the kindergarden recess tactics of name calling when the game wasn't going her way

    Getting elected is not about telling the truth and talking about issues but telling the people what they want to hear....many voters get caught up in the hype of a muddy campaign and think negative attacks are a sign of the strength of their candidate.....after all, some people believe that professional wrestling is real.....

    April 23, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  45. Joe in DE

    The NY Times has gone a long way towards ruining it previous reputation but excessive partisan comment, unsupport by fact. Oh for the good old days.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  46. Wings, Aloha,Oregon

    The NYTimes is asolutely right. If not HIllary, than for sure Terry McAuliffe.
    Could anything be more negative than the Clintons being further to the right on Iran than Bush AND McCain? Can anyone imagine or consider the humongus world disaster of coming between two Arab countries like say Saudi Arabia and Iran? Yes, I said THE Clintons, as in both, just in case anyone thinks Billy would keep his mouth shut on policy. Bill Clinton is a Congressionally Certified Liar.

    She wants negative, she just got it. She has a short memory...and a bad one at that.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  47. garrick

    Hi jack
    Neagitive is a very nice word to use for Hillary thats just a nice way of saying destroyer of the party ,my ex wife wasnt this negative in our divorce and she wanted everything.
    clearwater fl

    April 23, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  48. Peter Pan Fairview, Texas

    The New York times better think again. Hillary Clinton and her pandering and lies and negative campaigning have given them something to write about including what they wrote about today. The Clintons are the New York times best contributors. How else are they going to justify their meager existence if they have nothing to write about? The Clintons are NEWS and the New York Times is a NEWS PAPER. When the Clintons are not acting out or up the Times has to create a story to talk about. That is called creative writing and they are awfully good at inventing news. They are not so good at reporting it accurately however.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  49. Kevin Leo (Jonesboro, GA)


    After the ABC News debate debacle, I am just happy to see a news outlet do its job!!! The editorial was fair in pointing out the faults of both campaigns in making this campaign so negative but was also correct in placing the majority of the blame at Hillary's feet. Hillary has no coattails to assist Democratic candidates at state and local levels due to her excessive baggage. As she continues on this path of slash and burn, this will only tear the party apart even further.

    Additionally, I am so tired of the Clinton Campaign saying that this has not been as divisive as other campaigns. SO WHAT!!! This is not the past we are returning to but the future we are building towards. The more that i listen to Hillary and her surrogates the more depressed I feel about the future of this country as they are happy to destroy anyone to win/steal the nomination. Meanwhile, Barack is trying to build coalitions to change the way government is run...two drastically and opposing points of view!!!

    April 23, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  50. JoAnn in Iowa

    Yes, I agree. She is a master of dirty campaigning. Exactly the kind of negative campaign that we want to be over with forever. Her idea that she is entitled to the nomination has made her desperate. Old politics! Unfortunately, she takes everyone down the drain with her.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  51. Maria Holt

    Yes, Clinton's negativity is just so typical as part of her continuing lust for power. She seems to be entirely devoid of any of the integrity or honor Barack so constantly displayes.
    I consider Senator Obama's reticence in lashing back at her absurd and dishonest claims to be a hallmark in diplomacy.

    April 23, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  52. Connie

    Jack, You say the New York Times said that about their home town girl? Oh I forgot she is from Pennsylvania now. Bet you five bucks Jack she had a winter home in Indiana and maybe a good old uncle who taught her how to down shots and drink beer. Obama needs to let them hang them selves , stay positive and on message he will find us folk from this little ole state love him. A bitter old white woman from Indiana.

    Connie from Logansport,Indiana

    April 23, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  53. AndyZ; Fairfax, VA

    Phooeey! This is a political campaign not a tea social. Someone please kick someone in the shins! You want my vote then convince me you really want to win. This 60's, hippie love fest is so sweet I'm turning into a diabetic. If there 'really' are differences between you show us. If Hillary were not married to Bill then the NY Times would be in love with her and her entire campaign would be seen in a different light. Some one tell the NY Times to get a copy of Machiavelli's, "The Prince." And stop punishing Hillary for her choice of husband!

    April 23, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  54. Rickey

    I once thought that "The Clinton" was the greatest thing since slice bread, but that bread now has a HOLE!!! I can see that the only thing she has for America is destruction. I ask what are the inside Profits that Bill has connected to this election? H=$109M Plus Platonium investment. This country is Doomed if she is elected

    April 23, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  55. Ronnie in South TX

    I agree 100% that she is spinning threads of doubt so fast, if she can't make it a negative spin, she'll make it so confusing, you'd think you were listening to a lawyer –oh, wait–we are listening to a lawyer.

    April 23, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  56. Agnes Nova Scotia Canada

    Jack the media lately is a joke. This Paper (supporter of Clinton's) deserves a lot of credit. They only stated what a lot of us know and have known all along. Clinton has been negative since Super Tuesday. But Let Barack go a little negative and he's the bully. Let him say nothing and he's not strong enough to defend himself. The media have to make up their mind one way or another here. Clinton can not win this thing without tearing Barack down. I say to Barack take the high road and talk about what's important to the American People a Leave that other crap up to the Clinton's.

    April 23, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  57. Aaron B.; Champaign, IL

    Sure, why not, everyone else is.

    April 23, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  58. Terry in Hanover Co., VA

    Obama has been negative during most of the campaign, only he does it covertly through his operatives while he smiles at the camera. He's also had help from the anti-Clinton media. As to Clinton herself, of course she's negative. Politicians have run negative campaigns ever since the days of Hamilton and Jefferson. Why? Because many people like to hear about issues but they love dirt, scandal, etc. How else do you explain all those tabloid shows, so-called reality shows, gossip columns, and one of the most scandal-ridden modern-day newspapers – The New York Times.

    April 23, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  59. Angela

    The sole reason for the primaries is to pick the best nominee. It is a presidential election – not a beauty pagent. There is no prize for Ms or Mr. Congeniality. It is called vetting – get the dirt out NOW, instead of November, when there is no going back.

    NYT: Its SENATOR Clinton, not Mrs. And Osama Bin Laden is not a scare tactic – he is just one of the many real threats that faces America, and was only one of many images SENATOR Clinton used in her ad.

    I think the NYT just gave SENATOR Obama a pillow.

    April 23, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  60. Sara, Minnesota

    Of course it is true. She has done everything she can to try to tear Obama down. And people think he is more negative than she is? Think about all the personal crap he could throw out there for the world to remember. He doesn't do that, or at least hasn't yet. I wouldn't blame him if he did. Hillary supporters, think of it this way. You all think it is fair game if it happens to Obama, because it is nothing like what the republicans are going to do to him. That works both ways. Think about all the scandals the Clintons have. She hasn't been vetted. When the country remembers all of the things that happened, there is no way she will win. Maybe it is time for Obama to bring it up, it's only fair isn't it?

    April 23, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  61. Chris


    Of all media outlets, the NY Times should know that there is always negative attacks during each election cycle - there's nothing abnormal about it. In my opinion, it's about time the Dems got dirty. If they want to derail McCain, they need to stop worrying about who may or may not be offended by attack ads and take the gloves off, even if it means provoking some fear - it sure worked for Bush!!

    -Chris from North Carolina

    April 23, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  62. Ralph at NYC

    Jack, this is politics, and while both Clintons are known to spare nothing to get their way, if it's getting too hot for Obama, he should stay out of the kitchen.

    April 23, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  63. Joshua P. from North Carolina

    Yes, the whole bitter comment would have been over the day it started if it was not for this woman. They both knew once John McCain had become presidential nominee of the Republican party that whatever negative thing happens will come back to haunt them in the general election. So what did Sen. Clinton decide to do? Only make things worse for her and Barrack when the Jermariah Wright tapes came out she was the go to person for the negative comments and when Bitter Gate happened she was the one who was there only twisting the knife that she stabbed. What was John McCain doing? He stayed out and working on Barrack's base because he knows that she will be pulling stuff like this so that she wins the convention and all of his people. He won't have to attack Barrack reap the benefit.

    April 23, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  64. AL

    Arent articles like "The Low Road to Victory" a technique out of the back stabbers handbook chapter the low road to selling news papers?

    April 23, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  65. Amy, NY

    let's say she uses this tactic to win against Obama by claiming that her experience is key to her nomination. What will she use as an argument against McCain. Can a first lady experience rival with 35 years on the political scene + war hero credentials. Nope. If the democrats are gonna win the White House, they have to leave behind the negativity and focus on establishing a clear contrast with McCain and I honestly don't see anyone who can do that better than OBama. He can stand as the candidate of HOpe, Change and Judgment on solid grounds. I mean what is Hillary gonna use against Mccain???? She takes more money from lobbyists, she campaigned for NAFTA, she supported the war, she is just as rich as his wife, she lacks judgment...super delegates gotta be smart on this one.

    April 23, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  66. Kalen Taylor


    Many leaders have had to get their hands dirty over the years, just take a look at Andrew Jackson. But many leaders have also been able to stick to their message. Clinton has failed at this. I don't think she is any dirtier than Obama, but she failed to stick to her principles. How can I vote for someone who changes their tone at every campaign stop?

    April 23, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  67. stan

    hillary knows nothing about self -sacrifice and doing things for the good of the party and all...she is a ruthless politician who will take down anyone to get her way, i now understand some of the hard core resentment republicans feel when they hear her name, and how they will really mobilize their base to defeat her in november if she steals the nomination from barck and is our nominee....

    April 23, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  68. Charles in Florida

    Jack, they say Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned., Obama's entry into the race for the nomination ruined Hillary's coronation. Now Obama's got to pay for that it until the convention, poor dude.

    April 23, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  69. Amy, NY

    Clinton uses this sad tactic because she wants to scare older women into voting for her. Well, I’m proud of the American people because in spite of all her negativity, the race did not change my much. Obama is still the front runner and it shows that change is the way to go. To the eyes of the world, Hillary has already lost her credibility and will certainly not be the one to restore the image and integrity of the US. Whenever she’ll say Bosnia, it will sound like Bill saying Monica!!!!! You want that couple in the White House??

    April 23, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  70. John and George

    Hillary Clinton says she can win the White House for the Democrats. How, we ask, is it on Ebay???

    April 23, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  71. Julie, NY

    What's wrong with pointing out flaws with your opponent? They're running for President of the United States. Shouldn't we know if they have serious flaws? That's like going to a job interview and not expecting to be questioned about your past job performance.

    April 23, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  72. Rob Tulsa, OK

    Lets be objective for a change, both candidates have had their moments but the Times has to be given some credit for identifying the more aggressive tactics. We all know that Hillary has a lot of easy targets in her baggage but so far, not much has been said openly during debates by Obama. Maybe he should?

    April 23, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  73. Burt

    Jack, I will stay positive and say something nice about Hillary's campaign.

    . . . still thinking . . .. .nothing comes to mind yet.

    April 23, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  74. Sharon

    Of course Hillary is the Instigator. She may be a fighter, but that won't get her anywhere with World Leaders . The U.S. does not have the power or the bargaining tools it once had. I would be looking for World War 111 should she get in. Now Obama, that is a different story.

    April 23, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  75. mitchell martin ark.

    duh! why do you think she's losing?

    April 23, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  76. Dan in Webster NY

    Hey Jack,
    The New York Yimes?? Who are they?

    April 23, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  77. Mark, OKC, OK

    The Clintons have a "halo" of negativity that hovers over them where ever they go. If Hillary was running unopposed, she would be running the most negative campaign in history!

    April 23, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  78. Penny

    Both candidates have become negative in the race.

    The race is so close and they realize that neither are going to win all the delegates needed to become the presumptive nominee, so the gloves have come off and the battle royal has started.

    Super delegates are on the fence, so both Clinton and Obama are using negative tactics to get their attention as to who is the better candidate.

    April 23, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
  79. Joanne

    Why don't the pundits pick up on Senator Clinton's remarks that she would 'obliterate' Iran? Isn't that enough to scare the bejesus out of us all?

    April 23, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
  80. Brad

    Its a 50-50 toss up. Hillary charges right in and Barry uses sarcasm and condescending demeanor to slap right back. I like tough in a president not marshmallow man. I will vote Hillary through the November election...and hopefully professor Obama can go back to class.

    April 23, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  81. JD

    At this point, her base consists of people who beleive that these negative attacks are a normal part of politics and prove she is toug. Going negative now won't cost her much more in primary votes, and my scare folks off Obama if she hits a nerve. This might work with a newcomer like Obama, but against a respected war hero like McCain, it would blow up in her face.

    April 23, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  82. Mary in CT

    "politics is not a tea party".......your vote is meaningless if Superdelegates can overturn the popular vote...sheer hogwash

    April 23, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
  83. Mimi

    When someone called her a monster heavens were falling, what else is she.
    When I see bill and hill, I get sick to my stomach, because in their eyes you could obviously see a snake ready to suck dry obama's blood.

    April 23, 2008 at 4:07 pm |
  84. tim

    hillary is not to blame for all the negativity but is for most of it and starting it.between the negativity and lies she is telling i can not understand how she is still in the race.maybe the public is so used to polititions lies that it is accepted these days.what a shame.lets not forget bill when we speak of lies!

    April 23, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  85. Tim From Sacramento, Ca

    She absolutly is the one to blame for negativity. All obama is doing is responding to Her initial attacks. Throw the kitchen sink Strategy remember.

    I admit both candidates are going negative but you have to be totally blind and absolutley ignorant not to see all negativity goes through her first.

    April 23, 2008 at 4:09 pm |
  86. Jamaal kansas

    The Clinton are Negative People they don't care about Penn. they care about getting in the White house that is it. And she know that the only way to stop Barack is to cut him down But I am Letting the Negative now Republican Clinton's Baracks Supporters will not let you do that

    April 23, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  87. Teenager from Florida

    Yes, I fully agree. Hillary is the source of every negative aspect in the election. Her two-sided campaign will do anything to get a vote. She criticizes obama for not being able to take the heat, but I recall a couple of months ago Hillary complaining about always getting the hard questions, and that the media is bias. Isn't that the kind of "heat" a candidate needs.

    April 23, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  88. Anna, SW Missouri

    Hillary keeps saying she is fighting for us, but I can not see how that is true. She wants Obama to lose in November so she can run again in 2012. If she cared about us or the Democratic Party taking the White House this year, she wouldn't be doing the Right Wing hit job on Obama.

    If she really cared about getting healthcare reform or bringing home the troops, she would be backing Barack Obama right now because there is no way she can win this thing. She is not fighting for us, and she could care less about us, her quote about southern white folks "Screw them" pretty much sums it up about how she feels about the Democratic Party winning in November.

    April 23, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  89. James D (Cary, NC)

    I guess if you've already got higher negatives, it doesn't hurt to go negative. Questioning Obama's flaws is par for the course, but the kindergarten attack? That was just ridiculous.

    April 23, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  90. Plano Mom

    Hooray for the NY TIMES

    April 23, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  91. Hargis

    Jack, lets be honest. The Governor was right. As I understand it 1 of 3 White voters indicated race was a factor. Do the math.

    April 23, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  92. alicia

    What did you think she was going to do. She had to do or say something to get some votes. And it's going to continue if the DNC don't put a stop to it.

    It kind of makes you think. What kind of people are voting for her. And, what kind of people is the US breeding.


    April 23, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  93. Freddy

    The results of the negative campain from the Clinton machine is allready working on favor of the republican party Now they are using the same trash hillary use agains,t Obama .Look at the campain in ,North Carolina
    Jack The reason Obama lost in Pennsylvania is very simple older peaple still believe that a black man is not ready to be president
    Is hard to believe that in this days people like Bill Clinton and his gang can brainwash the elderly peaple and get away whit

    Freddy bronx New York

    April 23, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  94. Ben from Copperas Cove,TX

    Jack the reason mr obama cannot close the deal is because the media, the clintons and the highly Prejudice white american who do not want change in America. The polls have shown that America is Ready for a Black Man or a Woman to become President, but this is a false statement to disincourage the American People for these changes. Mr Obama has ran a clean race, and I am proud of him for that, now you whites are saying he is not tough enough and that is totally trying to destroy his chances and to convince the Black to not vote for him mainly. Without the Black Votes supporting the Democrat the Republican will get our Votes.

    April 23, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  95. Pete, Fla.

    Oh the irony, Jack. The media, of all people, are blaming someone else for the negativity. Who do you think circulates all this negativity? That's right, the media. The media frequently has little segments devoted to trashing a candidate, and they constantly overplay soundbytes (only playing the parts that would make good news). Politics will never be polite, no matter how nice Obama is. Politics is a rough sport, and Bill Clinton said it right: "If you can't take a hit, then take off your jersey".

    April 23, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  96. Danny - Edmonton, Alberta

    I do agree she has been negative and by the way i will suggest to the Obama campaign that if after May 6th she does not drop out, they should start getting ready no matter who the nominee is. In the case that the Superdelegates steeel the nomination from Obama he can run with either Hagel or bloomberg and win in November.

    April 23, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  97. Rachael, North Carolina

    It's a real shame: I think if our Founding Fathers came back and saw this whole episode of all the negativity that's gone on in this century, after they sacrificed so much to give us this country, they would weep. Plus give the Clinton's a stern lecture about integrity, honesty, and above all, humility.
    If a newspaper in her own home-state of New York is informing readers about Clinton going negative, that should be proof enough that she is not the right kind of leader for this country.
    Bravo NY Times!

    April 23, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  98. William

    In a courtroom, when the prosecutor has a case that is a slam dunk, with evidence, the ONLY way to counter is to attack the character of the other party.

    She can't win playing fair, fair is not in the Clinton playbook. They feel they are 'entitled' to whatever they want.

    April 23, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
  99. Misti

    I don't agree with the NY Times. Barack Obama is often negative in his speeches about her. Then he laughs and acts like he was just making a joke.
    And frankly having lived long enough to see many campaigns, this one is one of the most positive uplifting ones I think I have ever seen.
    The biggest complainers seem to be the fanatic Barack Obama fans who seem to claim that anyone who isn't for him is negative and needs to be eliminated.
    I lived through the Nixon elections and the W. Bush elections and this is like pussycats in the back yard in comparrison

    Misti NY

    April 23, 2008 at 4:48 pm |
  100. Dee

    electronic voting machines problems seems to be a trick of the clintons at least they should allow her to win by more than 10%. What’s with the pants suits, this is typical for a gay female is this a sign. why dont she where dresses.

    April 23, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
  101. Tom, Avon, Maine, The Heart of Democracy

    I suspect it was actually Mark Penn, but she is responsible for her people and the campaign.

    April 23, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
  102. Veronica

    I am so disappointed with Hillary Clinton. Her win at all cost campaign is self serving and unAmerican. She's a power hungry polititian and could care less for the suffering whites in Pennsylvania. If she gets the nomination, she will do absolutely nothing for them.

    April 23, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
  103. Ruby Coria, LA. CA.

    Jack, what is negative?, to point out a persons weakness or points of view, I don't see as negative. We will come Nov. so tell your boy to be ready.

    April 23, 2008 at 4:58 pm |
  104. Chris in Chicago, IL

    No – both candidates, and most of the Democratic establishment participate in the negative campaigning. It is Obama who consistently, and disingenuously, says he honors the service of Senator McCain before he rips into him and tries desperately to link him to Bush, who the Democrats wish they were running against. If they focused on the issues, or lived up to their promise of practicing a new kind of politics, they would be trounced at the polls. Clinton is no more to blame than anyone else in politics today.

    April 23, 2008 at 4:58 pm |
  105. Linda - Missouri

    Yes for PA.

    No, it will not help her herein the midwest states or in NC. So I suppose we will see another side of Hillary.

    There is a saying"Speaking out of both sides of your face". That is not a good thing!

    April 23, 2008 at 4:58 pm |
  106. Beverly

    Hillary Clinton is a desperate woman. She will use whatever tactics she believes will work. She says she will work for the good of the democratic party if she doesn't win the nomination. but first she will have to show herslf to be a team player.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:00 pm |
  107. Jill

    The Times is right. How low can she go is the question.
    She has passed up the kitchen sink for the garbage disposal.

    As Democrats this does not make us happy. My son who voted for Hillary and supported her as his first choice Obama as his second now has decided on McCain. He does not have time for the mess the media and the Clintons have created. For those of us who voted a while back, is this damaging the Democratic Party, you bet. The Clintons are at it again. After 8 years the Party and the press should be a little more responsible. That will be the day.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:00 pm |
  108. fred

    i said months ago all hillary wants is to bring down the dem. i tired of hearing about her there are no body in the dem. party that has balls to tell her to get out. i see a nother 4 years of bush. im a dem. an i will not vote the party so screw up. the party made up of only one thing on there mind and its themself.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:01 pm |
  109. joaquin

    Hillary's clinton is destroying the democrats chances to get the white house with her negativity.

    If we get an other 4 years of Bush III (better known as McCain), will be thanks to Hillary's bitterness.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:01 pm |
  110. Bronwyn Williams

    We are slowly learning bits and pieces more about Obama as he campaigns, and that is what we need to do. He was not a well known candidate, and to many seemed to come from nowhere. If his being challenged by Hillary is making people nervous, so be it. Frankly, some things that have surfaced make me nervous as a voter about him. He is being challenged, as she has been challenged in this campaign as well as in years past. That is the way a campaign is supposed to be.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  111. Bunny-Alvin, Tx

    Ya Think! Hillary Clinton blames Obama for the negativity. I don't know how this woman can look at herself in the mirror. Do the Clintons lie so much that they start believing their own lies. I don't think anyone in this country can be so STUPID as to believe Obama started this cat fight. I respect Obama for wanting to stay above the fray, but come on there is so much amunition to use against the Clintons. I mean where do we start? It is OK Obama. I think all of your supporters will stand behind you if you want to start hitting below the belt.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  112. Steve in Pensacola

    I absolutely agree with the Times. The creation of doubt about her opponent is the only viable tactic the HRC campaign has left in their arsenal. In my opinion, if the Obama had gone negative in their approach, this whole ordeal would have been over already. The massive laundry list of conflicts of interest and skeletons in her closet that weren't brought to light by the Obama campaign is the probably the very list that the RNC has sitting on their desk, praying that she wins the nomination. They know they can beat her. Obama would be a problem for them. His list is fairly short and innocuous by comparison. The Colombia Free Trade issue alone, with the triad of her husband's, Penn's and Wolfson's involvement, would have been a nail in any candidate's coffin if somebody simply bothered to grab a hammer.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  113. Ravi from Maryland


    Hillary Clinton can't help but go negative. On a personal level, she's unappealing. She comes across as untrustworthy and unlikable if you happen to have a college degree and don't appreciate being taken for the kind of idiot that Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson seem to have tailored their campaign towards.

    There aren't that many positives about her as a candidate. Her "experience" claims and "ready from day 1" slogans were put forward by her campaign and uncontested by the Obama camp, which has since stepped up its efforts to call her credibility into question. If Hillary Clinton tried to run a positive campaign (I don't know what a positive Clinton campaign could look like) people would see her for the tragically flawed candidate that she is. Her only option is to strike out at Barack Obama in an attempt to show that he has as much baggage as she has. She basically said as much in the previous debate.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  114. questioner

    Yes I do blame her and her team.

    Speaking of negativity – or negative reporting – everything I have read or see on the web says that Barak Obama won the overall delegate count in Texas – Why is the media and every republican or Hillary supporter still calling it a Hillary victory? This needs to be corrected.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  115. Barb from Mich

    If you don't stop bad mouthing Hillary, she'll beat the crap out of you with her broom

    April 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  116. Sandra

    I agree whole heartedly. She started it.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:03 pm |
  117. Rick in Brookfield, CT

    The campaign is basically a prolonged job interview. As a senior manager in the private sector, I wouldn't even consider hiring anyone who's interview responses were essentially negative comments about the other job candidates, past employers, etc. This is Interviewing 101. Tell me why you're the best candidate for the job and how you can contribute to my objectives.

    No wonder people are so turned off by politicians. Those of us who provide all the revenues (taxes) for those who only spend it by-and-large wouldn't even consider hiring politicians based on what we see in their job interviews. Fortunately, if we saw candidates like that in our place of work, we could terminate the interview in a few short minutes.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:03 pm |
  118. Gene, Florida

    Its a right wing negativity conspiracy! She has already endorsed McCain over Obama, running the "Osama" (Willie Horton?) ad and possibly sold her soul to the devil (Richard Mellon Scaife meeting). With no more republican primaries and McBush willing to stay the course, the best bet for republicans is to cross over and vote Clinton. (wouldn't be a bad idea to contribute some "new" money to her campaign either.)

    April 23, 2008 at 5:04 pm |
  119. Lisa - Tennessee

    Jack, Hillary Clinton is the cause of the negativity. She'd always start it. Obama just answered back every time she threw something at him. She wants the first word and the last word. And when she can't have the last word, she'd throw a temper tantrum and say ridiculous things that make no sense.

    Obama should get negative with her as soon as she get negative with him. If someone slaps you in the face, wouldn't you slap them back? If you don't, you're a wuss.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:04 pm |
  120. Jim Nolan

    Of course Hillary is to blame for the ugliness of the campaign. It seems as though Karl Rove is her manager. Hillary would be somewhat better than McCain but she is part of the old order of things. We need a clean sweep in government. Barack Obama offers that clean sweep.

    Jim Nolan
    Boise, Idaho

    April 23, 2008 at 5:04 pm |
  121. melanie NC

    Hillary leads the negativity brigade BIG TIME. She and Bill will do whatever it takes to get back in the White House and add some more bucks to their multi-millions. She has already proven that she will lie, attack, and do just about anything that it takes-she is not to be trusted out of your range of seeing!!!

    April 23, 2008 at 5:05 pm |
  122. JR Ford

    Negativity is all she's got left. She's behind in elected dlegates, behind in the popular vote, behind in endorsements, behind in the national polls, and way behind in trustworthiness and honesty. If you want to be the queen, you've got to pull out of the stops, even if it takes your own party down the drain.

    JR Ford

    April 23, 2008 at 5:05 pm |
  123. tammie, Princeton NJ

    Jack ! Give your vitriol a break.
    Obama has been as negative or more so, just because he goes negative on the SLY, by putting mailings in Mailboxes & standing with his hands crossed & head bowed, while his surrogates do the dirty work, you think hes clean.
    Hillary has been resiliant, tenacious,brave & yes, shes a woman, hear her ROAR.
    She has faced your negative comments & those of the Media in general. She was outspent in Pa 3to 1 by your Messaiah, & yet what happened.
    The NY Times is in trouble & needs to sensationalize their news to keep on going. Maybe you could freelance for them ,so that they could go bankrupt sooner.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:05 pm |
  124. Gene, Florida

    Its a right wing negativity conspiracy! She has already endorsed McCain over Obama, running the "Osama" (Willie Horton?) ad and possibly sold her soul to the devil (Richard Mellon Scaife meeting). With no more republican primaries and McBush willing to stay the course, the best bet for republicans is to cross over and vote Clinton. (wouldn't be a bad idea to contribute some "new" money to her campaign either.)

    April 23, 2008 at 5:06 pm |
  125. Kathy in NY

    Krisa from San Diego omitted the glaring fact that nearly 100% of blacks voting, vote race first. Have you heard Obamabots bemoaning their gains based on the most glaring racism in the history of US politics. Send the rookie back to the minors in the Senate. The vast majority of Americans that didn't vote for Obama did so because he is clearly not qualified for the big leagues. Witness the smirks and squirming in the debate. Even those that thought either candidate would be fine were given great pause in the warm up for the general election. Super delegates...think!

    April 23, 2008 at 5:06 pm |
  126. mary in baltimore

    I disagree. Both have been negative one way or another.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:06 pm |
  127. JR Ford

    Negativity is all she’s got left. She’s behind in elected dlegates, behind in the popular vote, behind in endorsements, behind in the national polls, and way behind in trustworthiness and honesty. If you want to be the queen, you’ve got to pull out of the stops, even if it takes your own party down the drain.

    "Off with their heads!"

    JR Ford
    St Petersburg Fl

    April 23, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  128. Peggy

    I am one of the older ladies that think Hillary is the best candidate. We have a right to have an opinion and vote. We also have the wisdom of age and experience that is lacking in some younger voters. You should listen to your mother.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  129. Hargrove

    Racism is the "elephant" in the room, that the Clintons brought in, and that Obama's afraid to acknowledge.

    Bill led the charge by defining the AA vote, after the Clintons racial campaigning caused them to loose it to Barack, as a vote for "pride." They brought out Geraldine Ferraro to highlight the AA support for Barack, as a racial gift, that she claimed makes him “so lucky to be who he is.” Then Bill renamed the AA vote as for “an AA with a real chance to win.” When the heat went up on the racial comments by white surrogates of the Clintons, they trotted out their black friend, Bob Johnson, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, to repeat Geraldine Ferraro's claims, and to declare black people as passionate for their own, to the point of irrationality, and to announce that white people aren’t allowed to talk about it . . .

    The Clinton message, that’s increasingly “heard,” is that ” AA are voting racially for Barack Obama, white Americans should do the same, for Hillary . . .

    April 23, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  130. B. Adams

    Am I the only person dismayed by the "tribalizing" of our electorate? Discussions are couched in simplistic terms like "white male," "older white women," African Americans." These sound very much like the warring factions in Iraq and other places ruled by tribal strife. Such terms served demagogues in this country well in the past. Today's pundits are either demagogues or intellectual slugs. John King's map is nothing more than a modern-day tribal map. There is no pretense of understanding the issues that unite a union laborer in Pittsburgh, for example, from a union laborer in Philadelphia, or that differntiates both from the suburban housewife, who just may be African American. Is this the best we can do?

    April 23, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
  131. Rene D

    The NY Times should just stand down for a day or two and get the real lay of the land. How outlandishly juvenile of the editorial staff to backtrack on Hillary. Is this supposed to be a backhanded compliment to Barack? Why don't you clean up your own house, give us a balanced and even-tempered picture, or else stand down (close up shop) until the Debutante Season.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  132. Linda of Atlanta

    Yes I do blame Hillary Clinton for all of the negativity. Obama had to fight back. Had he not responded, people would have declared him "weak". He better keep fighting back. However, he does seem to get a backlash when he fights back. I think that's because Bill Clinton surfaces to tell everyone, "He's beating up on the girl". I can hardly stand him anymore!

    April 23, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  133. Norah (Boston, MA)

    Of course Hillary is responsible for most of the negativity!
    She will say anything, do anything, jump on any opportunity , tell any lie, obscure any truth. She is using being a woman to get away with outrageous behavior and then crying foul if anyone calls her on it. Her behavior these last months has been embarrassing. When we have a female president it will be someone who is honest, trustworthy and capable. I see nothing of those qualities in her- quite the opposite.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
  134. Christine, Lee's Summit, MO

    Yes of course, Hillary Clinton invented negative campaign ads. She is the first one ever to do this. Oh pleeeease.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:11 pm |
  135. Marcie

    I completely agree that she is at fault for the negativity of this democratic race. Barack Obama has handled her ridiculous attacks with poise and tact.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  136. Jane Ellis

    Clinton is to blame for 90-95% of the negativity. She is smart, dishonest, and ruthless. If you believe that integrity should have any role at all in the political process, she is the last person you should vote for.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  137. celia, hollywood fl

    yes. If she wants my vote she has to stop all this madness.

    April 23, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  138. Patricia McGahan


    I am in total agreement with the New York Times' position on Hillary Clinton traveling the "low road" during this presidential campaign.

    She is duplicitous in her approach to politics, and will continue this approach if elected. Hillary Clinton speaks with a forked tongue, period.

    Pat McGahan Lewis
    Stockton, Kansas

    April 23, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  139. sharon

    Yes, Hillary is most responsible. BUT, I blame the media too. Ever since Hillary started whining about being picked on and that the media was so unfair to her, the media has bent over backwards to slam Obama. Any controversy that the Clinton campaign has conjured up is covered incessantly while Bill and Hillary's multiple missteps get only cursory mention. Nuke Iran anyone? Hello. Is this not something the country should know about? Not if it comes from the Hillary camp I guess.

    Sharon, Warren MN

    April 23, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  140. Alex

    Hillary Clinton is a bull dog will do anything to win

    April 23, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
  141. Binoy Shanker Prasad

    I'm an avid reader of the New York Times for 25 years and I must tell you this editorial was in a very bad taste. The piece was written when Hillary's 10 point margin was not even clear. The barrage of attack from this Newspaper's columnists like Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd against Hillary will tell you if they have an agenda. Why Osama's image be out of bounds when capturing him is an issue.
    The fact that she withstood such an opposition from her friends and foes testifies to her strength.
    Dundas Ontario Canada

    April 23, 2008 at 5:35 pm |