by D. Cupples | A New York Times editorial titled "The Low Road to Victory" said that Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania's primary largely because she went negative and didn't engage Obama on substantive issues. Sour grapes, anyone?
Apparently, the person who wrote that editorial hadn't read the New York Times two days ago, when the Times slammed Obama for going negative in Pennsylvania. In part, the earlier article states:
"In television commercials and in appearances before crowded rallies, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, cast his opponent in one of the most negative lights of the entire 16-month campaign, calling her a compromised Washington insider.
"Mrs. Clinton, of New York, responded by suggesting that Mr. Obama’s message of hope had given way to old-style politics and asked Democrats to take a harder look at him." (NY Times)
A writer at Slate (who was with Obama on the campaign trail) also noticed that Obama's campaign aides had waxed negative and petty -- at the same time that Obama told audiences he is against tit-for-tat politics and just days after he told the ABC debate audience that his campaign isn't about petty politics.
In other words, Slate pointed out that Obama's claims of being above the fray were disingenuous or hypocritical.
That's not news. Obama has been engaging in back-door negativity for months (i.e., via aides and surrogates). On March 5, for example, an email signed by campaign manager David Plouffe referred to Hillary as "desperate" for staying in the race.
That was just one day after she won Ohio's primary by double digits.
In emails dated March 11 (signed by Obama) and April 14 (signed by Plouffe), Obama's campaign accused Hillary of attacking not only Obama but also Obama's supporters -- as though she's actually clueless enough to do that.
Is falsely stirring up anger against the other Democratic candidate a positive thing? Will it help promote the party unity that Obama mentions in speeches?
By this point, I've grown accustomed to Obama-infatuated pundits' ignoring the negativity emanating from Obama's campaign. It's in the media's interest to stop.
The Democratic race won't last forever. If the Times and other media outlets continue to act as biased political operatives, how could we readers ever validly view them as reliable, objective news sources?
Memeorandum has commentary.
Related BN-Politics Posts
* Obama in PA: More Stealth Attacks and Hypocrisy
* ABC Debate: Audacity of Misrepresentation
* Technically, Obama Didn't Fib re: Campaign Donations
* The Audacity of ... Hypocrisy?
* Obama Took Oil Money but Said He Didn't
* Obama Took Credit for Others' Legislative Work, Media Ignored it
.
I agree with this...Obama is getting away with a lot of negative attacks against Hillary and McCain. He is a master at playing the media in his favor. I think it is pretty slimy. great article :)N
Posted by: Nikki | April 23, 2008 at 05:49 PM
Nikki,
It's really a shame. Many media feel that they're doing Obama a favor, but actually they're just setting him up for a big fall should he become the Dem nominee.
The road to hell is paved with what kind of intentions?
Posted by: D. Cupples | April 24, 2008 at 11:53 PM