The New York Times' Political Suicide Pact
I love the New York Times, and I love its usually brilliant, moving, and occasionally hilarious editorials. And I love Barack Obama, and spent the last two days in PA turning out the vote for him.
But tonight's New York Times trashing of Hillary Clinton was, to use the Times' own words, "mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled." It also represents a political suicide pact for Democratic politicians.
The Times criticized Hillary because she's run tough, sometimes negative ads, which they claim didn't work because Hillary started the Pennsylvania contest with a twenty-point lead (actually a lead in the high teens) and ended it with (only) a 10 point margin. The idea that such a hotly contested, high profile race between two talented candidates wouldn't tighten (especially when Obama was outspending Hillary at least 2-1) goes against most recorded political history. It also defies the exit polls, which show late deciders breaking disproportionately for Hillary (58 - 42 for people who decided in the last three days), powerful evidence that her brilliant ads really worked.
The editorial board has, and has long held, a fundamentally distorted view of negative advertising. Like many in the mainstream media, they argue that debates about candidates' fundamental character don't have a place in the political arena - that we should leave it all to great editorial writers insulated from the juvenile passions of the madding crowd, even as the news side of the paper lustily covers the candidates' every flaw, foible, or fumble. But the board's attitude ignores the evidence: negative, fear-inducing advertising actually has far more positive civic effects than positive, enthusiasm-inducing advertising that merely reinforce people's existing prejudices. Negative ads actually cause people to seek out new, independent sources of information (like the Times), something positive ads don't (for more on this, read this excerpt from my book in The Nation).
It's ridiculous to condemn Hillary for crafting a powerful ad arguing that she's best able to defend the country against al Qaeda. That is a key threshold issue for millions of voters and it is not only the right, but the obligation of a candidate for Commander-in-Chief to make that case and make it dramatically. Obama recognizes that too, which is why he doesn't shy from arguing forcefully that Hillary's vote for the Iraq War shows that she lacks the judgment to run America's foreign policy. That's exactly the kind of debate we're going to need to have with John McCain; it's vital that Democrats elect a candidate who can make that case powerfully, and these primaries are their proving ground before we let them take on the Republicans.
It might seem easy to dismiss the Times editorials out of hand. After all, the Times can gripe, but they're not in charge of making the ads or crafting candidates' message. But many Democratic politicians are actually afraid to defy the Times' political strategy advice - at their peril. For example, in 2000, according to Jeffrey Toobin's superb book Too Close to Call, one of the reasons the Democrats didn't fight as aggressively for Florida's votes as the Republicans was because top Democrats were thinking more about keeping The Times editorial board happy by refraining from hardball politics than they were thinking about how to cobble together enough votes to defeat George Bush. This is the political suicide pact the Times offers candidates when it condemns negative advertising: to appease us, you have to forgo a tactic that works and risk defeat.
Next time we pick up a New York Times editorial telling Democratic strategists how to do their job, we'd all do well to remember James Carville and Paul Begala's maxim: "It's hard for your opponent to say bad things about you when your fist is in his mouth."
Follow Glenn Hurowitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/glennhurowitz
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The extreme liberal went hysterical throughout this campaign to try to tear HRC down using tactics copied from republican. HRC may not win at the end, but extreme liberals will shoot themselves in the feet.
The thing that I have often wondered to myself is if the Clinton campaign thinks the Obama campaign is engaging in dirty politics - simply because they themselves are and believe every campaigner does this.
Just because Hillary supporters beat Obama up on race and then say "oh, he's just too sensitive" or "he took it the wrong way" --- Just because the Hillary supporters have labeled any guy who doesn't vote for her as a misogynist....
This doesn't mean the Obama people are fighting the same way. Both Obama and even McCain have played more above-the-belt than I'm used to seeing in any election. They have tried to get rid of the hogwash and stay on-topic. Notice how no one (to my knowledge) is saying anything remotely similar to that about Hillary.
That is a nice read, a fresh breath of air considering all those crappy "all hail Obama" articles, with no mention of negativity about him, instead a presentation of a silky white price charming being the best in everything, with no flaw whatsoever. And, they think he can win against Republicans just with that. Haven't they learned their lesson after the last two elections? Or are they living in a separate dimension that will prevent them seeing what is in front of them?
And, the ones below claiming they will never vote for Hillary. Well, that is your choice. But, know that many Hillary voters feel exactly the same way. So, you are not alone. And that means take your scary tactics somewhere else, where it works, like to be used during Obama cult-sessions among yourselves.
Disregarding the fact, that Hillary has blown her finances and inevitable nomination - lied about 'being under attack', called every state that didn't vote for her "unimportant", and disregard all the controversies of the present --- and past --- and her failure to succeed in any significant NY (my state) oriented bills...
Really - who's the delusion group here?
There's a reason people don't like Hillary and it's not because she's a "woman" or some such thing. It's because they see in her what we all fear the most: Someone who looks only to their own desires and ignores everyone else.
Awesome article. I think the Times are such yuppy assholes, they have no idea that people like Hillary BECAUSE she isn't afraid to take the fight to people. We've lost to George "awesome speech" Bush twice because we elect these "high minded" people that think they are above that kind of politics. We should take a page from Karl Rove and do what it takes to get into the white house. Just because you wont fight the bully doesn't mean when he hits you its not going to hurt.
I liked what the NY Times had to say. That's her state, that's the so-called (by some) liberal newspaper ( I guess it is compared to WSJ). What the times had to say isn't so different from what I am hearing my friends saying here in Oregon and then about half of the blog world is saying it.
So, it must need saying.
The NYT (which endorsed Clinton) has every right to point out what 60% of the voters perceived, and that was that Clinton's attacks were unfounded. The late-deciders only prove that the ads were *scary*. I call a spade "a spade", and I would hope a reputable newspaper would at least do the same. The NYT did. When a Democrat morphs into a pandering, inauthentic, and grotesque mirror image of a Republican; something has gone seriously wrong.
Yes they may have thought the ads were negative but they voted for her anyway. In politics you have to make your case. I don't know what the Times editorial board wanted to be doing in her ads. She can be running in a field of daisies and singing "The Hills Are Alive With the Sound of Music."
I thought I knew what negative ads were about, but it seems that the Times' idea of negative ads are any ads where the candidates are not smiling like crazy people and holding babies in their hands.
Bull. Saying that the late breakers went to Hillary because of the negative ads is a typical logical fallacy. Cause and effect. Pennsylvania is white, older, many racists, and very conservative. Those late breakers..........well they were part of that 20% months ago, they just came back to Hillary after leaving their options open. To say that the negative ad caused them to come back has no basis in fact. Sure, you will get some on the margins, but the American electorate isn't monolithic and doesn't work in a herd mentality like the media and pundits try to present them. They are people who are.......conservative or liberal, hawks or doves, racist or inclusive, white or brown or whatever color, old or young, man or woman......you get the point. Hillary won by 10 points because the Clintons have a lot of support in Pennsylvania and have since they were in office in the 90's. Obama had an uphill climb and did pretty well considering the demographics of the state. The same argument about negative ads was used in Ohio too, and I felt the same way about that. Cause and effect. They ran negative ads, Hillary won, therefore the ads worked. NO, Hillary won because she was ahead by 20 points intitially, but only won by 10. The reasons are a lot more complicated than just ads.
Sorry, I'm not buying this argument.
When encountering negative ads the vast majority of people DO NOT "seek out new, independent sources of information" such as the editorial page of the New York Times or Mr. Hurowitz's writings. They aren't going to analyze Senator Obama's "bitter" comments through the prism of "What the Matter with Kansas?". They are just going to believe that "Obama hates religious people and guns" because that's what was implied by the ads.
The people who would seek out independent sources are the ones who are least swayed by negative ads to begin with.
If you love Barack Obama, why do you want to turn him into Hillary Clinton who has recently morphed into Karl Rove? Obama's message of change and hope must sound as hollow to someone as cynical as you are as it does to Clinton when she looks to the sky seeking the choir of angels. Clinton is the candidate that has publicly endorsed the opposing party's candidate as more qualified than her competitor in her own party. The NYT did not ask that candidates not argue their positions forcefully. They do ask that they not become what they have hated most about Republican party. You know that "vast right wing conspiracy" that so plagued the Clinton's over the years.
I have no doubt, that Hillary would switch parties, if it would guarantee her a nomination by the Republicans.
I think the editorial was a bit weird. But not because it was inaccurate. Clinton's campaign has been right out of Karl Rove's playbook since she realized she was losing. And to use those tactics against a fellow Democrat is "mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled." With "mean" being part of the weirdness quotient. She is using desperate tactics and practically admitted during the debate that she talked about Bosnia in ways she knew were inaccurate in the usual political doublespeak. Any other Dem candidate in her position would have gracefully conceded. Despite her huge support among women. If she had conceded gracefully BEFORE all this nasty campaigning started the huge and growing schism between Obama and Clinton supporters would not have had a chance to develop. As it is, the political pundits are underestimating hugely how much she has put off Obama supporters. And how much all her disappointed supporters are becoming fixed in their insistance that she "deserves" the nomination. It's now a huge, huge mess. And the Dem party has itself to blame. If someone doesn't get going on a solution, we will lose the election to McCain.
Hurowitz completely missed the point of the editorial. The problem wasn't that Clintons ads were negative. The problem was that they were sleazy, deceptive, dishonest and pandering.
The problem isn't negative ads in themselves, in the sense that they fairly criticizes an opponent .
The problem is that Clinton ran unfair negative ads like the one that took Obama's "bitter" comment completely out of context and used in a dishonest and disgusting way. She also ran unfair negative ads with Osama Bin Laden trying to scare people into voting for her.
Why are those ads unfair. The same reason it would be unfair for Obama to put together an ad that showed all Clinton's mood swings and inconsistencies and then tried to scare people out of voting for her.
It's remarkable that Hurowitz would defend unfairness
Stan
How did Clinton take the "bitter" comment out of context? IMHO, the more you put that comment in context of the setting and the rest of what he said, the worse Obama comes off. If it were just the "bitter" comment it would be mildly troubling because people don't like being told how they feel, but it wouldn't be far from the truth (I mean if people aren't bitter after 8 years of Bush they haven't been paying attention). The problem is that the rest of the stuff he said just made it worse and kept digging the hole deeper.
What context makes a comment made in front of a wealthy Bay Area audience about how working class Pennsylvanians are manipulated to vote for Republicans because they "cling" to guns and religion as though religion is bad or something (admittedly guns are problematic for many, but there are people who are never going to give them up and don't like to be belittled for that).
What Obama meant and what Clinton knows he meant is that many people don't vote on economic issues, because they don't believe it will make a difference, so instead they vote on, or cling to in the voting booth, other issues, like gay marriage, abortion, gun rights, immigration issues.
Of course this is true and of course Clinton knows it's true. But what does she do? She distorts it and turns it into being a general statement, not about why people vote on wedge issues and against their economic interest, but about why people are religious.
It's the very essence of unfairness and sleaze.
People ARE bitter. Haven't you ever spoken to anyone... ever?
Kudos to Glenn for his intellectual honesty. The NYT's editorial was bizarre.
"intellectual honesty"??
If Glenn had that character trait, he would post ALL the replies to this post.
Hillary Clinton and her gang of uneducated thugs and neocon warriors want to turn the democratic party so far to the right that McCain will look like a moderate in comparison. They have no appreciation of democratic values and ideals and instead want to enforce George Bush's policies on the party and the world. Clinton is a dangerous person not just because she has no character but because she is leading her sheep into a right wing nightmare where there is no difference between the two pro-war parties.
Part 1
There is so much ill-advised analysis to disagree with in this post, that I really don't know where to begin... I guess with an obvious fact. The New York Times editorial board enthusiastically endorses Clinton. They have done their best to string out a process that would have ended a long while back if not for their slant on the candidates. It is readily apparent in their editorials, their stories and their blog coverage and moderation.
This NYT editorial is just one more example... don't be fooled. It is intended to be a cleansing ritual.
"...all American voters deserve to hear a nuanced debate — right now and through the general campaign...."
Do you understand what they are saying? It's the same message that they have been repeating for many weeks now: "Yes, we know that she has no mathematical chance of winning, but we will continue to fully back her in the belief that the powers behind the curtain will convene and anoint her... and oh, by the way, let's just forget the incredibly nasty tactics that her campaign has been using to pretend that she has a chance of winning... starting now."
Part 2
Carville pulls his head out of Bubba's ass long enough to impart and impress you: ""It's hard for your opponent to say bad things about you when your fist is in his mouth."
Well, Glenn, I'm sure in your ringing endorsement of this schoolyard philosophy that you believe that the incredible number of real issues that face us today can be solved by adhering to a Republican playbook, but I don't believe that "real change" are just two meaningless words. Your ideal is corrupt and counterproductive to the point of being very destructive. If you want to project toughness, try developing a philosophy that real courage means facing problems head-on. Have you learned nothing?
... and the scenario that the NYT is attempting to avoid... the chance that Obama will actually take the gloves off and quit fighting with the double standard handicap that Clinton demands.
Then again, perhaps your post is just an inside joke?
Hillary and Bill - putting the "nasty" in Dynasty since 1992
So the hell we have lived through for the last seven years - the fear-based politics of BushRove - is good for us?
I don't think so.
Yeap. And if Obama put his fist in Hill's mouth, folks would cry foul. It's a double standard. Don't you think? Plus, it's an editorial. You know what an editorial is don't you.? Now go away.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
