<p>This from the Times, which had endorsed H. Clinton for the Democratic nomination:</p>
<p>"The Low Road to Victory</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. 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…</p>
<p>By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?hp[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?hp</a></p>
<p>This editorial is vacuous as there are absolutely NOT differences between them on the issues. IMO, the NYT is just covering their butts so they can endorse Obama later.</p>
<p>They’ve obviously had a change of heart. The pro-Hillary slant at NYT changed around when her campaign got so negative. It would’ve been easy and straightforward to endorse Obama as the Dem candidate for November regardless of their primary endorsement; that they are expressing such distaste suggests a deeper reaction on their part toward her campaign. (as many have felt).</p>
<p>The NYT editorial opening line “The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday”
Winning by 10 points is inconclusive??
The editor must have meant the race remains inconclusive.</p>
<p>Why would she not continue to go negative, when it obviously works so well? Obama was closing in tight on her lead until the last, (media aided smear job) debate, which made Jeremiah Wright, the absence of flag lapel pins, the “bitter” comment, and a tangential connection to Ayers the only things that truly mattered. Hillary wasted no time, but continued to hammer the nails Charlie and George put in place for her. Playing on people’s fears is the most effectively tried and true technique out there, even as the people it targets swear they are “disgusted” by the tactic. Just ask the Republicans. It’s always been the biggest arrow in their quiver, and it always works. Polls showed by almost 2 to 1 that voters though Hillary had unfairly attacked Barack Obama during campaigning, rather than the other way around. In Hillary’s case, negative really is the only arrow she’s got. And giving people (especially those of the older generation) permission to ask themselves, “Do I really want a black man whose Pastor is an “angry” black man to occupy the Oval Office?” is a very effective arrow indeed. that, in fact, is the exact question The Republican Party of North Carolina want their voters to ask themselves prior to their Primary. They are set to run the ad now. And it doesn’t matter how John McCain feels about it, either.</p>
<p>I’m wondering if it is time for Obama to go negative-to show the Hillary that is unstable,raging, lying and brushing it off, scolding,chugging shots of Crown Royal, threatening to obliterate Iran? not reading Security briefs? I think it is time.</p>
<p>The Clintons are vicious, immoral, unethical people and she/he will do and say anything needed in order to win. But it is a sad commentary about this nation that her tactics are definitely working, especially as the polls show her having such low ratings for honest and trustworthiness. </p>
<p>But I think it is all too little too late for Billary. Her net gain in Penn is about 10 delegates which is meaningless (just as she “won” Texas and Obama received more delegates) and her campaign is essentially financially (if not morally) bankrupt. </p>
<p>Don’t see her going “Romney” as Bill ain’t letting her dip too deep into that 109 million they’ve made and other than her self delusions in prolonging these primaries, this will all be done soon enough and is only being prolonged by the cable news feeding frenzy. She will never catch Obama in the popular vote and if he carries Indiana and N. Carolina, which he should, it is all over.</p>
<p>The only thing ultimately keeping Obama out of the White House is racism and that may well do it ultimately and give us Bush III with McCain. They say a people get the government they deserve and sadly Bush III seems to be the case.</p>
<p>While both McCain and both Clintons have a reputation for hot-headedness, Obama has always presented as cool and self-contained. However, the fear of black men’s anger is so powerful and so visceral, that even Obama’s tangential connection to a perceived “angry black man” is enough to ultimately deep-six his candidacy. I said it before, and I’ll say it again, this issue will be all it takes to shut Obama out, if not from the nomination, than definitely from the White House.<br>
—In which case, I’m definitely voting McCain. At least then, I feel I know what I’ll be getting. With Clinton (that two faced/two headed entity), you never know what you’ll be getting from one day to the next.:rolleyes:</p>
<p>But poetsheart- with Clinton, at least it’s 50/50 that we will end this war and not find ourselves mired in another one. It’s also likely we will make progress on healthcare, we’ll keep social security intact (McCain has already said he’d privatize) and we have some chance of getting some of the things through that a democratic congress will legislate. Why give up all that just because you can’t count on her? There’s no way she would be worse than McCain, (provided you don’t see things as a Republican.)
And seriously, can you respect a man that calls his wife c**t?</p>
<p>This is only a hypothetical, as I believe the nomination is Obama’s.</p>
<p>Sorry A.S.A.P., but I believe the chances are better than 50/50 that we will stay mired in Iraq with Billary in the White House. S/he is a hawk at heart, and has demonstrated it with her rhetoric numerous times. As Mini has shown frequently, Bill’s administration worked very assiduously to build a case against Iraq, and it ultimately served as the foundation upon which Bush so easily built his invasion house. Hillary says she’ll begin to withdraw the troops from Iraq within the first 16 months of her Presidency. Obama says 6 months. But the thing that absolutely flummoxed me was her promise to nuke Iran if it attacked Israel. That’s an amazing statement if you really think about it. So Hillary, what do we do if China nukes us for nuking it’s Ally?</p>
<p>Ok, but she said she’d nuke Iran IF IRAN NUKED ISRAEL. Now, I’m not saying that this is a good thing. But, how likely is this to happen? Iran is not going to nuke Israel. I believe she was parading her hawk side for political gain.
McCain is likely to nuke Iran without provocation. Just the possibility that they might be developing nukes is enough for him.
“There will be more wars.” J. McCain</p>
<p>And there’s healthcare. I believe she’d go through with that if she has a dem congress.
McCain will privatize everything, including the military if he can’t get enough volunteers to fight his wars.</p>
<p>I also think Hilary knows that Iran has no plans or ability to nuke anyone. That’s why she could be so strident on this issue.</p>
<p>She came outright and said she’d nuke Iran, but Democrats got their knickers in a twist when McCain joked, “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”. How come she was only posturing, while he poses an immanent threat?</p>
<p>She was saying it in response to what would happen IF IRAN NUKED ISRAEL.</p>
<p>This is defending our allies, however misguided. McCain sees no problem with preemption on the basis of perceived threat. Big difference.</p>
<p>The question from Cuomo was, .“What would you do if Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel?”</p>
<p>It was a set-up question for Clinton, as of course "it all depends’ would have been a better answer. One that Obama might have said, and he would have been slammed for being “weak.”</p>
<p>McCain has a habit of saying ugly things while he “jokes around.” But his jokes are often a bit too close to how he really feels, I think.</p>
<p>Cheney-lite. That is hysterical. But i’m not so sure about the “lite”. She is Rove in a pants suit and not so sure Karl is above donning such garb.</p>
<p>The woman will lie about anything from her Bosnia trip, to N. Ireland, to Schip etc. She’s even lied about such petty things as claiming her daughter was jogging around the WTC on 9-11 and that she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary.</p>
<p>The lies have now graduated to fear mongering that is right out of the republican playbook. And she’s definitely a hawk in sheep’s clothing. She’s a fighter, she screams it to the rafters. She doesn’t understand finesse or resolution, that is why her attempts at health care reform when first lady were a complete failure. If elected she will get nothing of import accomplished, may well plunge us into more warfare and may supplant Bush as the worst President ever. </p>
<p>And I"m still waiting for her or ANYONE to tell me what her experience consists of other than she’s ready for a call at 3 a.m. after all those nites of staying up wondering where Bill was.</p>
<p>wow I just read the article. I wish I were so eloquent as to say it as well as they did. It was perfect.</p>
<p>My respect for the Times has increased. After their poorly researched article using anonymous sources regarding John McCain and a lobbyist, I made my husband take over paying for the Times on his credit card. He wouldn’t let me cancel it.</p>
<p>Kudos to the Times for having the courage to bring to light the negative and mean qualities of a candidate they once supported.</p>
</p>