The New York Times's 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's own words, "mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled." It also represents a political suicide pact for Democratic politicians.

Read More

The Times criticized Hillary because she's run tough, sometimes negative ads, which The Times claims 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's 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: make us happy or stop using a tactic that works.

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."