New York Times Endorses Hillary Clinton

i don't really like hillary but i would show her my owl, if you know what i mean.

 

Those things could apply to almost anyone making a serious run for the Presidency and the last two for everyone running for President. Even Ron Paul.

It takes a certain meglomania to put up with the grind of a campaign, beg for money, deal with the attacks, and the relentless scrutiny. None of the candidates we have now, and probably ever will have, are going to be Cincinnatus drafted to serve for the good of the Republic, but people with their own vision of grandeur and a desire to seek it.

 

I agree with the NYT editorial and am very strongly leading towards supporting Hillary on Super-Tuesday. I don't dislike Obama (even though I am Asian ) but at this point I don't think he is the best candidate. The biggest problem that I see with Obama is that he based his candidacy on being a new politician who transcends narrow interests and negativity yet in the past couple of weeks we've seen him engage in negativity and racial politics. The idea that he is a new politician above the petty sniping has pretty much went out the window when he snapped at Hillary about her being on the board of Walmart. The issue that I see is that while Obama has talked about changing politics when things get stuff he resorts to the same tactics that he has been decrying. Given that this is still only the Democractic primary what is going to happen to Obama when he faces the general election and the full force of the party that doesn't share his views is turned on him?

The other problem with Obama is that his record does matter and his flubs on votes and where he has voted "present" are issues that matter. While these might be quirks of the Illinois legisture merely excusing them as such doesn't address the issue. Even if Illinios allows these things we should be asking why Obama felt the need to resort to those. His excuses are those were either just politics or mistakes. As someone who claims to be against politics as usual shouldn't he be called on why he resorted to that sort of political manuevering. At the sametime in regard to some crucial votes its not reassuring that a legislator could cast a mistaken vote.

It seems to me that many of those who support Obama and Obama himself would just gloss over those and accept Obama has almost an ahistorical politician. At the sametime when the crucial experience question comes up they will point to Obama's history of forging coalitions in the Il Senate. Well you can't have it both ways and if Obama is ahistorical then he should be challenged on experience. If he has a history then he should be challenged on that history.

This also applies to one of the centerpieces of Obama's campaign that while Clinton and Edwards voted for the resolution authorizing force against Iraq Obama didn't and spoke out against it. The crucial fact that seems to be forgotten is Obama wasn't in position to vote for or against the resolution. While Clinton and Edwards are rightfully called on that issue it is disengenous for Obama to portray himself as making a corageous stand when he wasn't in a position to make that stand. So yes its a fact he didn't vote for the resolution but its speculative if he would've even made that speech had he been in the US Senate instead of the Illinois and representing the whole state instead of the South Side of Chicago.

Hillary is far far from what I would consider an ideal candidate and I don't disagree with her critics that she is polarizing, shrill and calculating. Everyone knows that about her and in a way that is also her strength as the plan of attack against her is known. Hillary has been dealing with these attacks for more than 16 years now and has proven to be resilient. For how much negativity is heaped against her she is tough and has succeeded.

At the sametime from the moderate's POV Hillary's Senate record has been pragmatic and accomodating. If the Clinton presidency is any record she learned from the early disastrous attempt to try to cram something through but instead work with Congress. Also following the Clinton presidency on most policy matters we are likely to see a middle of the road course including some actual fiscal responsibilty.

So yes Hillary has big problems but given her toughness and the middle of the road course she has steered as a senator I think she's a better choice than Obama.

 

I think that debate where he brought up the Walmart stuff is exactly the kind of negative campaigning he has talked about being against. I agree with you on that.

I think it played into Hillary's hands. If she can muddy Obama and make him appear to be as dirty and slimy as she is, then she is the the winner.

But his speech tonight gave a great move away from that while still being tough.

I don't know if you caught it, but you should check it out if you can. He admitted tonight how tough the road was going to be and how the campaign was going to be, and admitted mistakes along the way.

Yet he didn't waver one bit in his idea to change the tone of politics, and get away from the old style. He was defiant in the idea that his opponents would challenge him for saying Reagan had ideas even if he never agreed with him. He pointed out that was exactly the kind of politics the country needed to get away from, and it shone a light on Bill Clinton's idiotic comments when he tried to slam Obama for saying Reagan had a movement and ideas.

Despite Obama going down that path with his Walmart remarks and the SC debate in general, his opponents in IL, have said that he can work with people from the other side, and he has still shown himself to be further removed from muddiness and slimy politics than Hillary.

I will have to see if he follows up on the promise of speech tonight.

It is true that he wasn't in a position to vote on Iraq, but Hillary's subsequent votes on Iran shows that she hasn't learned a thing from her Iraqi votes, and that plays directly to her ability to learn from mistakes, and move forward.

I also think the fact that he did so much better than expected among white SC voters is promising for him.

He's still putting forward new ideas in how to govern, and even if it delivers only half of what it promises, it's a far cry better than what Hillary is showing.

 

I usually disagree T_J on a lot of issues because I think he is far to the right. But I think his take on Obama is dead on. Over-hyped, inexperienced and no substance. Those are the words I will use to describe Obama.

What makes Obama supporters believe he is different than other politicians?
Once feeling threatened, he has no problems throwing cheap shots at his opponents (i.e, the Walmart remarks). He actually started the personal attacks in that debate, although his attacks looked so punch less.

The political path for Obama really is too easy so far. He had no competition when he campaigned for US senate. He really didn't do much significant in either state senate or US senate. He had a great key note speech in Dem convention 4 years ago and, boom, he became the so call "rock star" and the savior for mankind. BTW, that speech still remains as his biggest highlight to date, and repeatedly re-winded in his campaign ads.

My dear ppl, this guy is not tested! this guy is an unknown. I still can't believe how awkward he looks when he faces some of the adversities. Boy, this guy can't think straight when Bill Clinton is in the house. But once again, the extreme left of the democratic party and the media covered him up by portraying him as the victim of the dirty politics, even though he himself has no problem at all on getting down dirty, he is just not as good as Bill.

 

Yeah right...

 

What hasn't he flushed out that Edwards and Hillary have? When it comes to policies, the three of them are similar. The "change" he espouses is one of leadership style.

 

I'll be more clear: What "meat" on the bones from Obama are you still waiting for? What has he not said or done during the campaign that he should have by now?

I'm thinking perhaps your reservations are actually due to his newness on the scene instead of a lack of substance in his campaign.

 

i guess i missed it, but what did obama say about clinton and wal-mart?

i think her ties to wal-mart are legitimate issues - she sat on their board of directors for 6 years. her stance on labor unions, health benefits for employees and use of sweatshop labor should be called into question.

 

I think Obama's change isn't as much about his position on policies, but about his style of leadership, and the way he will work with others. It is different even than what Bill Clinton was advocating. Clinton was able to work a little bit with others because he actually adopted some of their policies.

Obama's idea is to first focus on the areas that different sides have in common. That part is different even than taking some issues from one side and some issues from the other side, which is what Clinton did.

So if people are looking for his change to be a radical new idea on defense spending, or managing taxes or something like that, they aren't going to ever see it, because his whole idea isn't about radical changes on those issues. It isn't about looking at one issue and the other, but it's about finding areas of agreement on all or close to all the issues, and making progress there.

That is something that is a change, and is very different from what we've had.

 

Yes that is clearly her strategy but if he gets past Clinton its not as though the Republicans are going to deal with Obama with kid gloves.

I will stand by my point if Obama can't maintain the high road against people who agree with him on most of the issues how is he going to handle the assault from the other side?

Everyone knows that Obama can give a great speech. That is the easy part for him. The hard part though is how does he live up to his rhetoric? Its one thing to say you are out ot change the tone of politics but then when some mud starts hitting you do the same thing. Sorry to be cynical but negativity is a huge part of electoral politics. You can try to take the high road like Kerry did with the Swift Boats and suffer the consequences or you can answer it back. That is tough though when the basis of your campaign is taking the high road.

But what does any of that mean? If I'm looking at this from the Republican side what does it mean to say that you are going work with me if all of your policy positions are on the more liberal side of even the Democratic spectrum. Almost every candidate has promised to be able to work across the aisle, remember Bush said he was a "uniter not a divider" but how has that worked in practice. Obama might very well prove to be able to work across party lines but if he is true to his platform that's going to be a monumental task. Obama supporters seem to be caught up in this idea that he will somehow magically transform politics when other than that he gives great speeches there is no real sense of how that will happen.

 

Howabout giving more detail to how exactly he is going to change politics and get the Republicans to support his platform? Give more complete answers to what his relationship with Rezko was? Explain in better detail why he voted present so many times and why on a couple of critical votes he mistakenly voted the other way. Personally I would like to see him challenged on that more because I've heard the current Admin. claim they made mistakes about what documents Bush saw or knew about it. I've heard the argument that "well the President has a lot of paper on his desk." I have a hard time buying that as a legitimate excuse as much as "well the buttons for yea and nay are very close together."

 

Of course but then Obama relationship to Rezko should also be fair game.

 

I don't think her relationship with Walmart should really be fair game, unless their is some evidence that it's influenced her. It's the kind of thing we should get away from.

Obama's connection with Rezko, should be noted, but if there is no influence we see, and he isn't connected with any wrong doing, then it isn't that big of a deal.

 

That's where it is a real change. As Obama likes to point out, we have more in common than we do that are different.

I'll use as an example abortion. While Obama might be in favor of choice, and his most conservative opponents are strictly pro-life, both sides can agree on banning late term abortions, etc. The problem with the issue has always been that people get bogged down with specifics like what exactly does danger to the mother mean etc.

Almost every issue has areas of agreement like that, and Obama's whole form of leadership is to focus on those areas, and make progress and bring more unity.

His opponents in Illinois speak highly of his ability to get things done working with the opposite side.

Yes Bush has said that he was a uniter and not a divider, but Obama has told us exactly how he's going to unite, and has at least some track record of doing it.

 

The Rezko thing has to be flushed out into the open and the facts examined. At a minimum, the association will make Obama smell worse. At worst, it could tarnish him quite a bit. We will see once it's picked a part 10 times over by Hillary, the press and (if need be) the Republicans.

 

I agree it isn't good and should be examined. It shows poor character judgment no matter what.

But so far it isn't anything major, though it is noteworthy.