New York Times Endorses Clinton, McCain

The New York Times editorial board on Thursday endorsed Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain in their respective presidential nomination races. From the editorial endorsing Clinton:

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.

The Times' endorsement of McCain had a much different tone:

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. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

The Times also notes, "Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? ... Mr. Giuliani's arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking."

Comments

[LiberalMajority]

I can't get over the number of Hillary haters coming from the left.

Like many others, I'm still on the fence between the two, and regardless who wins, will be damn proud and excited to vote for either candidate in the general election. I still hope Edwards makes a comeback, as I prefer his policies in general. And I wish we knew ahead of time who they were choosing for running mate to more easily narrow down our choices.

I listen to Thom Hartmann on the radio frequently. Hartmann I consider one of the smartest men alive. He mentions inexplicitly how he encounters dumbasses (my word) out there in bars and similar venues who honestly believe Obama is a Muslim or won't vote for him simply because his middle name is Hussein. Add this fact to the Republicans fully engaging these kind of smear tactics.

Hartmann says Obama cannot deny that his father was a Muslim or change his middle name.
Doesn't matter what he says or what he does or how inspiring or brilliant he is.
No matter how we can easily look past these minor details, there's that 30% backwash Americans out there that continue to support Commander Codpiece, and will buy whatever the republican slime machine throws at them.

I don't think that's a reason to vote for Hillary because of what the thugs are already perpetrating against Obama. But she is more prepared to deal with the gutter politics from the Republicans, and everything they've already thrown at her we've already heard a kazillion times before.

Remember how we all felt the Day after election 2004. I can't go through that again, although almost any Republican (save for Ghouly and some of the fringe candidates) will be 100x better than the current administration.

We need to get a Democrat elected, and I think Hillary will be able to pull it off in the general.

[ALMAL]

Obama praise president REAGAN,then after been criticised trush him and his LEGASY

Praised president CLINTON,now Obama trushing CLINTONS LEGASY.

Obama told us ,that his supporters won't go vote for democratic nominie,if nominy isn't him ,after been criticised,next day he tells hi didn't meen it.

Obama pushed button and ripped off childrens fund on millions dollars,
then he told that hi didn't meen to do so.

Trushing respected PRESIDENTS,and ripping of childrens money.

THIS IS NEW POLITICIAN OF HOPE.

CONTINIE TO INSULT ME ,Obama

[sebocd]

Muzzeltoff Hillary! Your one of our own and you know how things work.

[in4success]

Are the Democrats choosing Hillary because she has the moral integrity to stop an unjust war and to hold war criminals responsible for leading America into war based on lies and deception? Are they choosing Hillary because she defends the US Constitution from usurpation by executive power? Are they choosing her because she is public-spirited instead of personally ambitious?

No. The Democrats are choosing Hillary because of gender and race. Despite all the efforts of Democratic activist groups, the majority of Democratic voters are more concerned with race and gender issues than with their country's reputation and their civil liberties.

If elected president, Hillary will bring no more change than did the Democratic congressional majority elected in 2006.

Obama might not bring any change either. But he is the only candidate in the running who has expressed concern over Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians and who voted against the Iraq invasion. Clearly, he is a better bet for change than Hillary. However, Democrats are more attuned to race and gender issues than to war crimes and loss of civil liberties.

FULL ARTICLE HERE:
http://counterpunch.org/roberts01242008.html

everything you need to know about hillary clinton and her "health care" plan:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9L50shyUoQU

and about that slum lord tony rezko:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

oh . . . and . . . um . . . we knew it was coming (wow):
http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/huma_abedin.htm

[ImpeachmentNOW]

.
The NYT endorses two liberal Democrats. Why is that even news?
.

[ALMAL]

Are BORAKS supporters extremists?

If they, supporters, consider Bill Clinton racist.
What they think about average white guy

[youzaho]

McCain? I'm less sure a vote for McCain is in the best interest of our country in light of our current economic troubles and especially given his debate performance last night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu-tg1kQ8dk

[Rustyzipper]

looks like "slumlord" gave money to the DNC, when Bill Clinton was prez.

http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?20035431471

[flashlight]

Hillary Clintons appeal is limited to OWLLs (Old White Lady Liberals).

All the other demographics dislike her - minorities, men, young people and old conservative ladies.

Why would the Democrats want to narrow their base like this?

[Buddhabman]

This is a long fight. NY Times is speaking for NY primary. 23 other states, Obama is likely to get many delegates in New York regardless of the endorsement. Mass, Ill, Minn, ND, Kansas, Del are likely to break for Obama. So laugh if you want to Hillareichs. This decision is going to the convention.

[texmex66]

The NYT endorsed Giuliani twice for mayor but now says he was arrogant and his bad judgment was breathtaking. Britney Spears and the NYT need lots of meds to treat their bipolar disorder.

[speakingtruth2power]

I would never vote for McCain and I would very much like to not have Hillary as our President. The GOP hate machine supported by their large share of the MSM would not let US have any peace. Still, we must have a new administration and the country needs leadership.

If Hillary wins most of the delegates on Feb Five, the best thing for the party would be to quickly agree that Obama would be our VP, Edwards our Atty Gen., and strongly support the reelection of Kucinich over his rivals.

A united Democratic party should promise to end the fascist efforts of BushCo, pointing out their war profiteering, illegal spying, war crimes and corruption. We should hang the corpse of BushCo around the GOP's neck, citing all their enabling and manipulations of US through fear and loathing.

[flashlight]

Hillary - 2nd most hated figure in America

Obama - Most respected man in American, at home and abroad

[daveny]

Here's what I wrote to the Times:

While there are excellent reasons for supporting many of the candidates in this year’s race for the White House, I was a bit surprised by two you cited in Hillary Clinton’s favor.

You call her “dedicated” to the causes of civil liberties, the rule of law, and the balance of powers. Yet this is the same senator who supported the Patriot Act, opportunistically proposed an anti-flag burning amendment, and has exhibited as Bush-like obsession with secrecy, in both deliberations and recordkeeping. I fail to see dedication to anything other than power in these regards.

As for the claim that she proved able to “unite and lead” in her senatorial campaigns, I must take issue. I grew up in Central New York, and am comfortable saying that the “conservatives” she barely won over would be considered “liberal” almost anywhere else in the nation. I am skeptical that she would be any more unifying for the nation than our current, divisive President.

There are reasons to support Mrs. Clinton, but those two are not among them!

[jhamm1]

"Mrs. Clinton would help restore America's global image"? These guys obviously need to do their research.

"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."

Translation: we are suckers for sophistry.