On NY Times Editorial Blasting Clinton

April 23rd, 2008

A New York Times editorial piece written last night blasted Senator Clinton for negative campaigning. While the editorial acknowledged Senator Obama has had a role in this campaigning as well, it put the blame solely on Clinton saying:

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.

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.

I just want to quibble with one point, that voters are getting tired of it. This is a traditional argument that follows the reasoning that negative campaigning doesn’t work, ruins the process and is the reason voters are apathetic. To which I say, with 99% of the vote reporting 2,300,542 out of 4.2 million registered Democrats voted in Pennsylvania last night. For a primary election that is an amazing turnout. Despite Obama’s 2-1 spending over Senator Clinton he lost by ten points.

Frankly, that to me shows the negative campaigning is probably working.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Election 2008 |