The New York Times is Wrong

Yesterday morning, the New York Times wrote an editorial widely decrying tactics used in the recently completed Pennsylvania primary. The article specifically focused on Hillary Clinton and her use of negative campaign tactics to undermine Senator Barack Obama in the waning days of that state's contest. The Times criticized the tone and content of the campaign, focusing particularly on the rhetoric and advertisements of Senator Clinton.

The Times is wrong because, but for that communication, the primary almost certainly would have been closer than it proved to be. Exit polls showed that while both candidates were seen as having leveled unfair attacks, the 46% who said that negative advertisements impacted their vote broke overwhelmingly for Senator Clinton.

Senator Clinton's margin had dropped to low, single-digits earlier last week when she was in danger of being overwhelmed by Senator Obama's 2.5-3 to 1 advantage in media advertising and campaign spending. Senator Clinton then successfully framed the race as a referendum on Senator Obama and his values, particularly with regards to his comments about Americans being bitter and clinging to guns and religion as a means of dealing with that bitterness. By doing so, she was able to win substantial victories, not only with working-class voters, but with working-class male voters, a key constituency that she needed to win. Her supporters were clearly energized, as she raised $3.5 million in the hours after winning the primary, marking her best overnight performance ever.

The lessons of Pennsylvania are clear for her going forward. She must continue on a negative or a comparative theme if she is to win the upcoming primaries. After running a negative campaign, candidates are frequently tempted to turn back to a positive track to avoid criticism from the media. Given the deficit that Senator Clinton faces in states won, the popular vote and pledged delegates, she does not have this luxury. She must continue to draw contrasts with Senator Obama, raise questions about the nature and extent of his associations with Reverend Wright and terrorist leader William Ayers, and raise more questions about his values in comparison with hers.

Having done 15 years of successful Democratic campaigns in Indiana, I can say with confidence that negative campaigning works effectively with Hoosier voters. Voters in the southern part of the state are very much akin to southern white voters, who have given an overwhelmingly large amount of support to Senator Clinton. They will be quite susceptible to her values-based argument about the flawed candidacy of Senator Obama. Voters in the northwestern part of the state, particularly white, working-class voters, will also be responsive to this appeal, along with Senator Clinton's appeal on economic issues relating to the almost-certain recession. Thus, experience and my own political history suggest that this is the only direction and approach Senator Clinton can take to maximize her chance of success.

There will be ample time once the nominee is decided upon, most likely in June, for the Democratic Party to come together. With only around 20% of each candidate's supporters defecting to John McCain, there is every indication that when the two candidates consolidate once the primary season is over, the Democratic support will coalesce around the nominee. It will further coalesce if we have an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket, which is increasingly likely. But for now, Senator Clinton has in large part adopted the advice offered in my Washington Post op-ed piece last week. If she is to make the most of her chance for success, she must continue with the same tactics.

Carly Cooperman contributed to this article.

Comments

[liberalpatriot1]

Mr. Schoen is right and The New York Times is wrong only if one subscribes to the notion that it is appropriate for a Democratic contender to stoop in order to conquer, something Senator Clinton has done repeatedly throughout the course of this campaign.

Also, to say that white voters will be "susceptible to Clinton's 'values-based' arguments about Obama's 'flawed candidancy'" is a page right out of Karl Rove's play book. There was a time when all Democrats would have found this kind of rhetoric repugnant, especially when directed at another Democrat. I, for one, have grown weary with Rovian-style gutter politics. Obama represents hope for change in that respect - Senator Clinton just more of the same.

[aliceblue]

The Clinton's have values?

I must have missed that.

[DUMAMAY]

97% black people vote for Obama !!! Is not racial vote???

[ThisIsAllJustADream]

i'd vote for either obama or clinton in a heartbeat. i just wish i could do it NOW. can we just end this primary nonsense, please? the superdelegates could be forced to cast their votes and then we can all focus on assassinating mccain's character. agreed?

[Perrier007]

So she can continue her scorched-earth, character assassination of the democrat nominee, right? Why do you think John McCain hasn't announced a running-mate yet? I still think it's because Hillary becomes that running-mate if she can't get the dem nomination by hook or by crook. Retty close, those two.

[nyscribbler]

The prescription called for ought to be applied to Mrs. Clinton as well. This blogger should advocate that the media start questioning Hillary as to why she would live with Bill after his extra-marital affairs and his lying. They should grill her on the file that mysteriously showed up in the White House, the scandals that broke while there, and of course the suspected murder of Vince Foster- naturally this blogger will cheer the media on and Clintonistas will appreciate the delicious state of affairs we find ourselves in.

[THISTLE]

Paul Krugman writes in today's, New York Times, an outstanding piece on this very subject.
Senator Clinton is bashed non-stop for "attacking" Obama - this is absurd. What attacks?
When did pointing out the record or no-record of one's opponent become an "attack'?

When did forcing one's opponent to answer questions that he avoids and won't answer - an attack?
In the debate, one saw the real Obama, a guy who is visibly annoyed when he is asked a question. How dare anyone actually ask St. Obama a question? He reminded us of another cocky guy - he acted exactly like that other arrogrant and cocky guy - named George Bush.

Obama's relationships with a string of unsavory characters - tell us about OBAMA'S JUDGEMENT,
so does his "NON-PRESENT" votes, so does his LIES - here are some of them: He told the people
of Illinois - "I will not run for President in 2008," "I only worked with Resko for 5 hours," He lied about not seeing a piece of legislation, that has his signature on it. And on and on.... This guy's JUDGEMENT tells us everything we need to know about him.
His "hitting the wrong buttons" when he was actually "present" to vote. Do you want this guy's
shaky hand near "buttons?" His wife, she said, "we won't do this again."
Now if that doesn't sound like - we are "entitled" - what does?
If the Democrats are dumb enough to actually nominate this guy, they will

[nomobull]

not much on researech are you

[uncleT]

You really want to get into a discussion of Obama's "relationships with unsavory characters?" Really? Cause I'm not sure that that's an argument that the Clinton people can win.

[aliceblue]

We're still waiting for the final bid on
Jennifer Flower's phone sex tapes
featuring Bill's heavy breathing.

Do we really need two people so subject
to blackmail in the People's House?

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

ah, another "ends justifies the means" proponent. how proud you must be. perhaps you should go to the left column and read the piece on generation jones.

the old politics of the has-beens is so obviously not good for america. and here you are saying essentially "give us more." jeez.

please move out of the way for the new generation of folks who have to deal with what your generation has given us. we don't want anymore of it. recognize when you are in the way and holding up progress, it's the least you can do for the people of this country, and the world.

[PorkBelly]

Schoen=Penn=Garin=Scum

[neoconscums]

Hillary reminds me of Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone with the wind"

"---- If I have to lie, cheat or steal ( by God I'll be the next President of the United States)
But then again Scarlett was hungry. What is Hillary's excuse for telling lies, cheating and stealing. I mean she is the most UNSCRUPULOUS and SCARIEST person that ever ran for office. Can't people SEE that?

[john456]

As a former Hoosier, Doug Shcoen is right about the attitudes of the Whites there. The inhabitants of Indiana are not the Quakers in "Friendly Persuasion" or the original Socialists of New Harmony. After the Civil War many inhabitants from Tennessee and Kentucky moved to southern Indiana. Since WWII the migration North from the South formed a large section of the "white blue collar" demographic, far more than in Pennsylvania. These same appeals will resonate, but may Hillary Democrats will be McCain Democrats in November.
Whomever is President in the next four years will face overwhelming problems. Bush has spent the last of any of this nation's wealth and bankrupt the country with the Iraq fiasco. The Clintons do not have any magic nor does anyone else. In fact, they are indebted to the same forces that put us in Iraq and will probably have us bombing Iran. Obama tells folks that "we" working together can "try" to solve our problems. Clinton appeals to the part of the populace that believes that a savior is available. Hence, she continually speaks of "I will do". Unfortunately, from my reading of history, a person like Hillary Clinton often becomes a demagogue and possibly a dictator.

[HamletsMill]

Good post. I live near Pittsburgh. I have family that has moved from here to Indiana. Indiana is Pennsylvania...with money. The Klan in the 1920's was centered in Indiana if you know history. The same forces are at work there in the vote that were in psychological play in Pennsylvania. If it is very close or Obama wins, it could be a sign of his strength still in the cards. Hillary scares the living shit out of me. And I shook hands with her back in 1992 in McKeesport, PA.

[RickO]

Hillary's tactics are definitely having a psycholocial impact.

At the beginning of all this, I was excited that she was running and had a deep and abiding respect for Bill. I started listening to Obama and I read his book (which most of the MSM have not). As it went on, I was happy that either one would be great and felt very hopeful.

Fast-forward to today. I can't stand Hillary, not for her positions but for her tactics. She's lied to my face, twisted the facts in grotesquely obvious ways, and seems manically bent on winning at any cost (although I am glad she dropped that weird maniacal laughter thing). Bill has become a joke and maybe that's the saddest part.

Obama has stumbled a bit trying to counter Hillary's desperate mudslinging without sacrificing his principles but I look at him as someone I would trust and admire as president.

If Hillary finds some way, other than winning, to get nominated, I'll probably sit this one out, or write in Obama. I didn't used to feel that way.

[druidlady42]

This race is just what the MSM and the ill-informed American public love: good ole' political SPECTATOR SPORT! Obama's in the wrestling ring with one hand tied behind his back while being plummeled to death by both Hillary and McCain! The rules of the game for Hillary and McCain: there ARE NO RULES! Because he has called for us all to rise above the petty, frivolous, hateful issues that divide us,--the "rules" only apply to Obama. If he fights back, the referee (corporate-controlled MSM) starts screaming "rule infraction" and starts the count!

Why don't any damn rules apply to Hillary and McCain? Reminds one of how the Romans flocked by the thousands to their Coliseum to enjoy watching those insurrectionist Christians being eaten by the lions! Hmm, remember what happened to the Romans?

We get the leaders we deserve!

[Overd0g]

At least he's not married to Bill Clinton.

[JadedAggie]

This is not a general election. You cannot solidify your negatives to that level in a primary and expect to win in the general as a democratic candidate. Republicans always seem to forget that democratic voters exhibit free will and don't just aimlessly fall in line regardless of disdain for their candidates. If she went nuclear it's likely she would cement the current proportion of Obama voters that won't cross over and pad that number considerably. Right now polling hasn't shown the youth vote turning on her in the general election, but if she went nuclear and McCain continued his change/bi-partisan rhetoric it is possible she could be the first democratic candidate in a long time to lose the youth vote.

[HamletsMill]

A very interesting analysis.

[BlueOnBlue]

Nice to see someone being open and honest about being evil. You're still a tool, but at least you're an honest one.

Folks, this is what you get with Hillary. She'll not only listen to such people, but they will assume places of importance in her administration. This guy would make a good substitute for Karl Rove, don't you think? Or, maybe the Attorney General's office.

[missette]

Even if Hillary wins by continuing to "go negative," in the end she loses and the country loses. All she'll be doing is maintaining the status quo, because her continuous attempts to not defeat but destory Obama show only contempt for the electorate, and because she is campaiging just like Bush, she will surely govern just like Bush. The scandals and gridlock will continue and we will continue to be scorned by the rest of the world. Why doesn't Hillary's camp just forget all the slime and come out in say, it's all about the power? At least we could respect their honesty.

[SheepleShepherd]

Honesty? LOL.

[DUMAMAY]

Can not hear when you sit in the Church!!!
Is this honesty

[ceti]

Wow, just wow. Down and dirty framing reaches a new low. The fact that this guy represents the Hillary camp so openly, is conclusive proof that Hillary has gone over completely to the dark side.

[brutus948]

Hence Forth you shall be called Darth HillBill :-)