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.