The New York Times took some time to endorse presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
After considering the candidates and their campaigns, The Times‘ editorial board have decided that Clinton and McCain are America’s best choices for the Democratic and Republican parties. Here’s what they say about Senator Clinton – note their catty assessment of Obama:
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.
The board describes an Obama presidency as “enticing,” but ultimately feels that Clinton brings more to the presidential table.
The Republican field, says The Times, wasn’t as fruitful as the Democratic offerings. Thus they really had no other choice than to endorse McCain, the least evil and insane of the crew.
We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.
Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe.
The paper goes on to blast former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani, whom they describe as “secretive” and “vindictive,” both of which are true.
M.v.d. Meer
The Times also used the endorsement to tell the despicable lie that they opposed the war in Iraq. And then, further, to say that “this is not the issue.”
adams
I LOVE NEW YORK times.
Great call, on both sides
I was a little concerned that you did’nt mentionin in this bullaten the administrations desicration of the Constitution. Including violations of Conventions, Fisrt strike Exct. And wire tapping that the supreme court its self ruled would supress dessent, and is a assault on one of our Constitutional rights to be protected from unreasenable search.
These men hve swarn oaths to protect these laws.
I feel as a powerful news paper you need to continue to push for our Constitution more.
Great job. Peace love
Adam
It’s no surprise coming from the New York Times the real tone of the article is not an endorsement of each parties candidates, but an endorsement of the liberal agenda. I should have known better than to trust the prescribed header in the article “endorses”.
afrolito
I love the smackdown they gave Ghouliani. That fucker is going down in flames, and will be humiliated in the Florida primaries next week.
Web Smith
The New York Times just wants to give Dowd a chance to win another Pulitzer. This time she can write about Hillary’s sexual escapades instead of Bill’s.
M. J. Bee
Is ANYONE surprised that the New York Times would pick McCain over Romney.
Domestically, there’s not a dimes worth of difference between the Clinton and McCain. I don’t consider Mr. McCain a conservative or a hero. Politically, at best, he’s a moderate and militarily he’s a survivor – not a hero.
AGN
Isn’t there something inherently wrong with news media selecting and supporting certain candidates over others? What ever happened to journalism being objective and unbiased?
seitan-on-a-stick
Since Queerty is more Obama-loving, here is the full endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton:
New York Times Editorial Board Endorsement of Hillary Clinton in the February 5th Primary:
“Primary Choices: Hillary Clintonâ€
1/25/08
“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.â€
Bill Perdue
The NY Times initially supported the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Later, when the landscape was littered with bodies and the body bags piling were up in Air Force hangers they said ‘Oops’. Oops doesn’t cut it. Clinton is the Wal-Mart candidate, the candidate who supports the war, busts unions, panders to bigots and opposes socialized medicine. She supports NAFTA but turns a cold shoulder to immigrant workers fleeing the economic devastation it caused in Mexico. She votes to cut taxes for the rich and welfare for the poor and to gut the constitution. She votes for the deregulation that plunging us into economic chaos. McCain is just as bad, except he’s against torture and she’s for it.
The Democratic Party gutted the employment protection bill ENDA, buried the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill and refuses to repeal the military discrimination bill DADT and the bill forbidding samesex marriage, DOMA. They’re sabotaging our chances for protective laws while upholding bigoted laws. The Republicans are just as bad.
seitan-on-a-stick
No, the Republicans are so MUCH worse, even on issues other than GAY plus you are a little dyslexic on some of those issues, Perdoo. Hello, we are the last civil rights battle of the 21st century.
Bill Perdue
It takes a village idiot to think Hillary is going to champion GLBT rights. Everything in her background says she won’t, what ever she promises when she’s desperate for votes. Even for a Dixiecrat she has an unwholesome relationship with the totalitarian christian right.
Mother Jones magazine reports “Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection.” “When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian “cell” whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of (Billionaire) Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democratâ€
“With Santorum, Clinton co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act; she didn’t back off even after Republican senators such as Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter pulled their names from the bill citing concerns that the measure would protect those refusing to perform key aspects of their jobs—say, pharmacists who won’t fill birth control prescriptions, or police officers who won’t guard abortion clinics.â€
“Clinton has championed federal funding of faith-based social services, which she embraced years before George W. Bush did; Marci Hamilton, author of God vs. the Gavel, says that the Clintons’ approach to faith-based initiatives “set the stage for Bush.” Clinton has also long supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a measure that has become a purity test for any candidate wishing to avoid war with the Christian right.†“Now, Brownback considers Clinton “a beautiful child of the living God.”
In addition to being a closeted religious nut she supports the essential parts of DOMA and, like all loyal Dixiecrats, says it’s a state rights issue. In addition she supports the war, the division of Iraq into three colonial provinces, the theft of the Iraqis oil industry by US Oil companies and the extension of the war into Iran. Rupert Murdoch, gazillionaire head of Faux News, the guy who’s the ‘neo’ in ‘neo Nazi” hosted a big fundraiser for Hillary, inviting the elite at his NY Fox News HQ. He, his son, and coincidentally all the Fox executives gave her big bucks.
She’s Bush Lite.
In an interview Rita Braver of CBS News Sunday Morning asked Pat Robertson, one of the worst of Republican theocratic totalitarians, “On the Democratic side, of course, everybody’s talking about Hillary Clinton. What– what would you and your followers think about her? “
His answer is illuminating. “Well she’s– tacking to the right as hard as she can tack. And– you know Hillary’s got some good points.â€
Pat Robertson and Rupert Murdoch know a good thing when they see it
Bill Perdue
when seitan-on-a-stick says “Hello, we are the last civil rights battle of the 21st century” that probably because he was born in the 21st century. Actually we’re the unresolved last civil rights battle of the 20the century.
The Lakota nation just abrogated it’s treaties with the United States, ushering in the first big civil rights battle of the 21st century.
seitan-on-a-stick
So, Bill Poo-Poo thinks we should vote for Bush? But he can’t run for a third term (but Jeb can) unless he declares Martial Law. Hmmm, it still takes a Clinton to Clean Up after a Bush and Super Tuesday will prove it and you will be cut from the Barack Advisory team or is that McCain’s?