Oh!-bama; Hillary gone sour, says NYT

Dateline: Wed 23 Apr 2008

Whatever your politics, this Democratic primary is one for the books. The highs and lows, twists and turns, ins and outs, will produce good analysis and copy for years to come.

While it is sometimes hard to see the forest for the trees, it seems obvious that Obama has trouble winning those core Dem constituents: the working-class, older women and white guys. In my view, that may say more about race relations than Hillary's tough-lady, attack-dog strategy and Barack's not wearing a flag pin.

The New York Times today -- which endorsed Hill -- has a good piece about the cost of her caustic campaign. Sure, she may win -- anything is possible in this free-for-all, although her victory is still doubtful -- but her jabs are just plain getting on some people's last nerves.

To quote the grey lady:

"In the paper's Wednesday edition, the editorial board which endorsed Clinton's White House bid earlier this year says the New York senator's "negativity" is doing "harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election."

"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," the board writes.

"The paper finds fault in Clinton's latest campaign ad, which includes an image of Osama bin Laden, and asks, "Who do you think has what it takes?"

"Mrs Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11," they write, adding that it is a tactic that is "torn right from Karl Rove's playbook."


Comments are closed.


or Register


Syndicate Blog