The New York Times Endorses Hillary Clinton

[Druid523]

Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton

This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.

The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.

As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.

We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.

On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.
It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.

The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave.
On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the same course — shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans, and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind education program.

Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and what must now be done to set things right.

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America’s voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won’t be able to do it town by town.

When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.

[Gregpooh]

These are such nice forums. Can we PLEASE not bring politics in to ruin them?

Pretty please?


Thank you.

[corwink]

Ah come on....everyone LOVES a good political "discussion"

[Xanthalas]

I hate politics.

However. No one is being forced to read these posts, or even click on the link.

Just move along.

That being said.

I'm voting for myself.

[Gregpooh]

No one's being 'forced' to go into restaurants that allow smoking either, but that's not stopping the Dem's in VA from trying to ban smoking in them 'for our own good'..


DARN IT, XANTH !!

*Resolves not to post on this thread any more..*

[Tremayne7]

My only comment on politics.


VOTE!

Thank you. You may return to your regularly scheduled forums.

[corwink]

My only comment on politics.


VOTE!

Thank you. You may return to your regularly scheduled forums.

Seconded!! Therefore it is official everyone MUST vote!

But seriously, my opinion is if you don't vote you have no room to complain if it turns out not like you wanted.

[Druid523]

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.

[Xanthalas]

DARN IT, XANTH !!

*Resolves not to post on this thread any more..*

Xanth?

Those last 4 letters too much for you?

Alas, Maybe we should get him full time care?

[VIpAcT]

I'm voting for Chuck Norris. Booyah!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpEckWHSvXk <-- or maybe Bill Cliton. (YouTube clip)

[T'Holoth Shadowborn]

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.

So I'm reading this and I read that the key points of these two people are one is a woman and the other is black?
Man what if someone got sneaky and got a jewish midget to run for office?

And I agree with Erik, No one is forced to read guys most of us are adults

It's scary that the most powerful country in the world seems to be running a vote for office that is one step away from a reality TV show.

[Druid523]

So I'm reading this and I read that the key points of these two people are one is a woman and the other is black?

No no! They are saying that those characteristics shouldn't be a reason to vote for someone (not in response to the candidates claiming that their race or gender should be an influential factor [they aren't claiming such], but in response to citizens voting based on that).

[Xanthalas]

I'm voting for the first person to show up in ceremonial shaman clothing.

Painted purple helps too.

Which is still.

ME

[T'Holoth Shadowborn]

No no! They are saying that those characteristics shouldn't be a reason to vote for someone (not in response to the candidates claiming that their race or gender should be an influential factor [they aren't claiming such], but in response to citizens voting based on that).

Okay, I just read that wrong.

I agree those things SHOULDN'T be key when deciding who wins.
But look at OJ Simpson. It was turned into a race issue. White vs Black.

It's sad how many votes will be given on colour and gender.
Then again considering all the false promises and flip floping atleast you can't change the colour of your skin or your gender.

Wait a minute....

[GimpGenius]

The truly sad thing about endorsements is that some people use them to decide who to vote for, rather than taking the time to inform themselves, think about the issues, and, I don't know... make a republic work like it's supposed to.

I was thinking of writing in for George Carlin or something. He may not be a politician, but at least he's funny. That and imagining him telling world leaders "go fuck yourself!" is just too much fun to pass up.

[p0m]

These are such nice forums. Can we PLEASE not bring politics in to ruin them?

Pretty please?


Thank you.

+1

[Xanthalas]

I hate politics.

However. No one is being forced to read these posts, or even click on the link.

Just move along.

That being said.

I'm voting for myself.

+2

[Lir'ana]

RON PAUL!!!!! well maybe. still informing myself.

I have a huge problem with voting. It seems to have turned into some kind of game. Where most people don't actually vote for who they want. They vote for who they think will win that way they can be on the winning side. Plus its all bought and paid for already.
My issues with voting run deep and I am just gonna shut up before I start rambling on.

[T'Holoth Shadowborn]

In the US does one vote count for one vote or does the location of the voter mean the vote is worth more/less?

[Xanthalas]

In the US does one vote count for one vote or does the location of the voter mean the vote is worth more/less?

That's a loaded question.

The answer is

Yes.

[T'Holoth Shadowborn]

lol yes to what though?

Is my vote as important as yours or does yours count more because of what state you live in?

[Trinity]

Yes.

[Xanthalas]

lol yes to what though?

Is my vote as important as yours or does yours count more because of what state you live in?

You don't get a vote!

Seriously though. The wacky way it works. Everyone's vote matters the same. But to WHOM is where the difference lies.

The electoral system takes those equal weighted votes, and reapplies a new value to them.

Damn it Grant, go look it up.

I already went to school once.

And it wasn't to become a teacher!

[Dengar]

Obama in Four years, but I cant seem to find a better canidate at the time...


All I will say, not up for debate, only can cause a massive argument amoungst friends.

I live in Illinois, and I have seen what Obama has done for the VA hospitals!

Bee

[Druid523]

Thank you for contributing to the conversation, Bee.