New York Times Endorses Hillary

Comments (132)

Ni Daye wrote on January 24, 2008 9:21 PM:

I'm relieved that the Times endorsed Hillary. the board featured a freaking lunatic by the name of Maureen Dowd and a very tough ex-editor Collins. The value of endorsement is regularly over-valued, just looking at DMR's. On the other hand, had NYT chosen to endorse Obama, it would have reflected very badly on Hillary.

Go Hillary!

paul wrote on January 24, 2008 9:29 PM:

Not one mention of character in their endorsement? What a surprise!

Jane Green wrote on January 24, 2008 9:32 PM:

No talk of divisive politics, no talk of dynasty. Boy am I glad I canceled my subscription years ago. No wonder papers are losing readers. This is a gloss over of so many major issues it is sickening. And, what about having the copresident BJW in the house. Now I won't even a NYT Sunday when I'm at Starbucks

Uncivil.Libertarian wrote on January 24, 2008 9:33 PM:

I have to agree with the NY Slimes on one point: Hilary is truly a uniter. To wit, she unites people in disgust, from the left, right and center. For almost 16 years running, as a Democrat, she has been the #1 fundraiser for the REPUBLICAN Party. Not exactly what I'd look for in a candidate if I were a Democrat. And while I agree that she has a powerful intellect, a trait she shares with both Obama and Edwards, her deep and abiding lack of integrity more than negates an advantage that was already neutralized by the equivalent or superior intellectual abilities of her opponents. I live in Alabama. We've had an intelligent governor who was lacking in integrity and ethics. He's now serving time in a federal penitentiary for bribery, conspiracy to commit honest services mail fraud, honest services mail fraud, and obstruction of justice. Don Siegelman is an excellent example of what happens when intelligent people do not have the integrity to match their intellect, and Hilary Clinton is but another example.

brad wrote on January 24, 2008 9:40 PM:

How can you write an endorsement without at least acknowledging her issues of credibility, dynasty, or character?

wow.

Steve wrote on January 24, 2008 9:42 PM:

It's just the establishment supporting a member of the establishment. But as a matter of history, isn't the Times overstating its opposition to the war? While it may have said something negative in an editorial, its front-page promotion of Judith Miller's propaganda was crucial in getting the invasion approved. Indeed, without that, and Tony Blair's support, Bush couldn't have obtained support for the war. I don't know about Hillary's support for the invasion, but many others would not have supported the war without the Times propaganda, disguised as news.

tym wrote on January 24, 2008 9:42 PM:

Who cares
Homefield advantage for Shrillary

I will not vote for that woman
If every paper in the country endorsed her

Drew M. wrote on January 24, 2008 9:43 PM:

As an Obama supporter, while I disagree with a few details, it's overall a very fair and solid endorsement.

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 9:45 PM:

Gee, what a surprise. I'm still pissed at the times for the lack of f*cking doing their job in spewing the king's war propoganda. Good job times, you did it again. Spin and distortion, but gotta keep the establishment going and satisfied to the detriment of the american people. We really appreciate it.

Judy Miller wrote on January 24, 2008 9:46 PM:

That's my homies.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 9:49 PM:

The NYT editorial board seems to making a lot of good choices lately. HRC, William Kristol to name a few.

Matthew wrote on January 24, 2008 9:49 PM:

Excellent and serious endorsement. It is refreshing to see traditional print media produce mature discussion. I likewise enjoy reading TPM as Josh and company offers similarly substantive discussions as does the NYT, even scoops them at times.

It is unfortunate, though, that reader comments, like most online comments elsewhere, are instead swamped with ranting, whining, and worse. I suspect comments in response to the NYT endorsement will be no less crudely expressed in this thread. Very sad as it would be nice to read and engage in serious, substantive discussion.

awrbb wrote on January 24, 2008 9:49 PM:

dog bites man

NCSteve wrote on January 24, 2008 9:52 PM:

I am shocked, shocked that Hillary's home town rag endorsed her. Wow. Never saw that coming. A veritable bolt from the blue.

Seriously, the NYT is so predictable. It's like every four years they go through their folders for each candidate for the Democratic nomination and then its like "Oh, wow! A visionless technocrat who's supported by the most ossified and cynical elements of the party establishement! Oh boy, our favorite! That's what I'm talkin' 'bout, baby!"

tym wrote on January 24, 2008 9:54 PM:

I do like Mo Dowd on Hillary though
She captures the essence of that evil woman

jacki wrote on January 24, 2008 9:55 PM:

I think I lost a little respect for the NYT just now. I think they need a reality check on their candidate. Oh wait, American media doesn't actually do real journalism, so why would we expect the NYT to know about Hillary, or what is best for this party, or what is best for this country?

Publicus wrote on January 24, 2008 10:00 PM:

This was TOTALLY unexpected. The NY Times endorsing the Senator from New York that they endorsed in her 2006 re-election to the US Senate. Absolutely SHOCKING.

Seriously, congrats to Senator Clinton, but this was to be expected.

Mike wrote on January 24, 2008 10:01 PM:

Steve,
Good catch. They are flat out lying, just as Bill Clinton was, when they say they opposed the war. The truth is that they were at best reluctant supporters.

Their editorial "Summons to War" in August of 2002 basically provided the blueprint that President Bush would later use to go to war.

Their record from then on was just as bad. This FAIR article called "New York Times Rewrites Iraq War History" provides some of the details:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2957

Obviously the board has undergone changes since then, so maybe some of the new members opposed the war, but it was wrong for them to make that claim in the editorial as though the NY Times editorial board opposed the war.

Jor wrote on January 24, 2008 10:01 PM:

Its funny how the Times is trying to re-write history on their stance on the Iraq war, just like the candidate they are endorsing. Two peas in a pod.

hello_world wrote on January 24, 2008 10:06 PM:

Of course she got that one. She's their home Senator, and she's vindictive enough to make life tough for the editorial board if they didn't endorse her.

No biggie. Now the LA Times...

malarson2 wrote on January 24, 2008 10:06 PM:

It’s the electability, stupid. Democrats, please pay attention: Hillary cannot win the general and that is the ONLY point worth putting out at this crucial moment of the primaries. Don't get distracted or side-tracked: put every other piece of info, scrappy fight, comment by surrogates, squabble, newspaper article, blog, story and propaganda-filled speech aside. Its not about race or gender or policies or change or experience. You only need to know ONE piece of information to make your decision: no candidate can win a general election that is not supported by half of her own party. Keep your eye on the 11/08 ball before it’s too late. She is the only thing that will rally the struggling Republican Party. Tell every Democrat and Independent you know: a vote for Hillary is a vote for John McCain, HIS war in Iraq and an economy that will not recover for a very long time. Why does the DNC not recognize this? We are running out of time to put an end to the eight, and I now fear 12, years of negative and never-endingly bad mojo and the moment to do something about it is right now. So stop talking and go out and do something. One simple first step? Email The DNC and tell them how you feel about the way The Clintons are leading our party and running their campaign. http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues . Pass it on.

David Beatty wrote on January 24, 2008 10:07 PM:

The Hillary Haters in full bloom in these comments - sheesh! The New York Times is a great newspaper and its editorials set the standard for other dailies. Thanks, Times.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 10:08 PM:

Yeah, thanks so fucking much for the endorsement of Hillary, Grey Lady.

I guess it would be a trifle difficult to explain choosing Obama when Hillary's the Senator from NY, and very popular with your readers.

I'm just so sure you guys won't turn right around and savage the Clintons as you've already done time and again.

Remember how you endorsed Bill for President once upon a time, only to fling all the Whitewater crap your incompetent reporters could dredge up right in his face? Because, after all, you endorsed him, how could you be biased against him? Who would ask any questions if all your charges turned out to be fabricated, groundless junk?

Maybe you can tell -- no, I'm not feeling very grateful.

Bill Kristol wrote on January 24, 2008 10:09 PM:

Excellent.

What better way to unite Republicans around whatever loser we nominate for President.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 10:11 PM:

a bunch of freaking sore loser here! Your brains are too shallow for a good argument.

dajafi wrote on January 24, 2008 10:12 PM:

The endorsement is a strange blend of substance and wishful thinking. Is Clinton smart? No question. Does she have impressive command of policy substance? Absolutely. Are her proposals, on the whole, worthwhile? Sure. (But, as the NYT suggests, the same is true of Obama.)

Then there's the wishful thinking:

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.

Really. The woman who always pushed for secrecy in her White House years, who has said that her AUMF vote was largely predicated on the notion that Congress owes deference to the executive branch, who is second to no Democrat in her belief in personal loyalty, is going to clean up the mess of Loyal Bushie governance? No sale here.

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.

Well, others might assert that "the issue" is the core political calculation that fed into that vote--and what it says about the Clintons' future views on use of force. My strong sense is that they're endlessly brave with other peoples' lives--and feel that state-sanctioned violence is always good politics. With that in mind, I suspect her major concern once in office will be with history not castigating her as the president who left Iraq.

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.

Right. A look at the comments in this and other sites populated mostly by Democrats should be sufficient to raise doubts about whether the Clintons can unite even their own party, let alone the country. And while I can credit that she's better in small settings, or in-person (hell, she's better on C-SPAN), than in commercials or debates, they are certainly right that she won't be able to campaign to an audience of 300 million in retail style.

And, as noted, there's no mention of dynastic politics and credibility, and only a brief and perfunctory-seeming note about campaign tactics.

This is not surprising from the Times ed board--people who, after all, go to parties with the likes of the Clintons as part of the NYC rich lib scene--but it's disappointing and insubstantial. If she wins, I hope they're proven right, but I'm deeply skeptical.

Nat wrote on January 24, 2008 10:15 PM:

Not a surprise, but still a joke. Kinda like when you figure out a punchline ahead of time, but still have to laugh at the delivery.

Emma wrote on January 24, 2008 10:19 PM:

tonight at the University of Wisconsin I went to the Students for Obama Kick-off meeting. It was held in a large lecture hall, yet there were not enough seats for the huge number of students that showed up. Governor Doyle spoke, and his speech endorsing Obama caused several people near me to choke up. A video of several of Obama's speeches was shown, and representatives of College Democrats and Obama Volunteers spoke. By the end of the meeting, the room was buzzing with excitement and energy; people were lining up to sign up to canvas in Minnesota and Wisconsin. The crowd was filled with students of all ages, races, and cultural backgrounds. Many people had never been involved in a political campaign before, and were suddenly planning to wake up at 6 am on Saturday morning, drive to Minnesota and go door-to-door all day. The young people of America, a previously apathetic and inactive group in politics, are more politically motivated than they have been since the 1960's. The New York Times speaks of Clinton's ability to unite people, and her readiness to be president right now. I don't dispute her credentials, but what I do know is that tonight I saw a room of very different people united under and ready for Barak Obama and the changes he will bring to this country.

lombard wrote on January 24, 2008 10:20 PM:

Hey, Hillary haters:

Are you going to go loco like this every time Clinton receives an endorsement?

You didn't hear us screaming, sneering, and ranting like mental cases when Obama got a string of political and print endorsements a week or two ago.

You guys are major babies. Politics is really too much for your fragile hearts. Why don't you take up something relaxing like witchcraft?

BluePuppy wrote on January 24, 2008 10:20 PM:

"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."

What a beautiful statement.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 10:21 PM:

This week's New Yorker's examination of Clinton's record and projection of the kind of president she would be is heads and shoulders above this NYT endorsement. But what should we expect from a newspaper that had morphed into the journalistic equivalent of Clinton: arrogant, technocratic, defensive and ultimately, soulless?

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 10:22 PM:

I am a Democrat, however, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton, neither in a primary nor the general election. I do have policy disagreements with the Senator, but I can overlook those to stand by my party in a general election. I refuse to vote for Clinton because I believe we as a country are buying into a system where elite families run the country while we sit on the sidelines and watch. I will not vote for Clinton because thirty years of presidents dominated by two families does not sound like the democracy imagined by our founders.
For a bit of perspective, I was 13 when George HW Bush was sworn in, at the end of a second eight-year Clinton presidency I will be 42. Imagine you are a voter under 25 years old, you probably can't remember a white house without a Bush or a Clinton living in it. Senator Clinton polls very poorly in the under 30 crowd, some of this may be attributable to the popularity of Barack Obama, but I would argue that these young voters want to believe in our democracy and are turning out in droves to vote against what is starting to look a lot more like an oligarchy.
As the self-proclaimed world leader in democracy, America should also be more aware of what our democracy looks like to the rest of the world. Dynasties, real or perceived, are damaging to our credit as a bastion to the democratic world. We are a country of over 300 million citizens who, according to our constitution, are all born with equal right to the presidency. Yet, apparently, only a few individuals from select families will be President of the United States.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 10:24 PM:

Even though I wanted Biden, and now Edwards, I pleased it's HRC over Obama whom I believe is a little light on what he'd do in office.

This nutcase hatred of HRC is frightening. Totally irrational. Ask an HRC hater why and they cannot give rational answers, sometimes no answer.

BluePuppy wrote on January 24, 2008 10:25 PM:

lombard -- these people are out of their minds. They couldn't possibly vote for Hillary (even if she accomplished as president everything we as Democrats value). I hardly think Obama is the best candidate for president, but he is a much better choice than any Republican. But look, these people aren't interested in achieving goals. They're interested in feeling self-righteous, spewing hate, and being "major babies," as you say.

Nat wrote on January 24, 2008 10:25 PM:

lombard-

"You didn't hear us screaming, sneering, and ranting like mental cases when Obama got a string of political and print endorsements a week or two ago."

That's because Hillary Clinton is no Barack Obama. Why not ask yourself WHY there are such discordant reactions rather than assume it's a plus for your side?

Here, I'll help. It starts with "divisive" and ends with "figure".

Maxstar212 wrote on January 24, 2008 10:26 PM:

I have been reading my home town newspaper for well over 40 years and have never been prouder of them. I look forward to my paper at my door tomorrow.

A little bit about how Obama would govern could be garnered by his views of History. He doesn't seem like someone who likes the Democratic Party. Read his own words about why people voted for Reagan.

"I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

The excesses and growth of the government were what the Democrats did. It was the Great Society, the Environmental movement, Medicare, Civil Rights, Progressive taxation, Government Regulation of Corporations. Calling them excesses is Republican language. Most Democrats didn't think they went far enough. And the "clarity" was against the honest soul searching that Americans had after Vietnam and Watergate of our place in the world.

His own words tell you his views and how he would govern.

lombard wrote on January 24, 2008 10:27 PM:

dajafi,

"Right. A look at the comments in this and other sites populated mostly by Democrats should be sufficient to raise doubts about whether the Clintons can unite even their own party, let alone the country."

The comments on this site are reflective of the mindsets of rabid, partisan goof balls with nothing better to do with their lives than obsess over every bit of trivial campaign drama. They are not representative of real mainstream citizens who don't care to be concerned over the tension of whether Obama will win SC by 8 points or 12 points.

I wouldn't make any judgments based on what you read here.

BluePuppy wrote on January 24, 2008 10:27 PM:

"I will not vote for Clinton because thirty years of presidents dominated by two families"

Hillary Rodham Clinton is not a blood relation of Bill. That has got to be the stupidest reason in the world. What if Hillary accomplished everything you valued?
Still couldn't vote of her? Wouldn't vote for Bobby Kennedy because, God forbid, he's brother had been president. Get a clue.

Kathy wrote on January 24, 2008 10:28 PM:

Why is it that I am thinking if this had gone for Obama, there would be cheering in the streets and vaunting of the great Gray Lady?

Absolutely amazing that some are calling the paper of Maureen Dowd biased and pro-Hillary.

Read closely, kids. This is what adults sound like when they make solid, thoughtful decisions.

BluePuppy wrote on January 24, 2008 10:32 PM:

It's amazing that the campaign of HOPE and CHANGE has the meanest supporters. Ask your self why. Because they're smarter and more ethical than anyone else. They're the reason many Americans hate liberals. Smug, self-righteous, and nasty, oh yeah, and so hopeful.

loki wrote on January 24, 2008 10:33 PM:

Well done. The Times, they are correct!

Obama is a light-weight. Give him time to grow up. And maybe in that time the Unhinged Obama Supporters infecting this forum will mature as well. ;^}

Mike M. wrote on January 24, 2008 10:34 PM:

A few comments here make me think that people misunderstand the way the Times is run. This is the endorsement of the Times editorial board. So the person who commented that the Times wasn't against the war because of the Judith Miller stories is only half right. The Times editorial board was against the war. It's news division, which is separate pursued another line of thinking. Same with the Times endorsing Bill Clinton in the 90s and then running with all sorts of Whitewater stories. Two different staffs at work. It isn't the job of the Times news division to keep its reporting in line with the opinions of the Op-Ed page board.

hello_world wrote on January 24, 2008 10:36 PM:

I don't know why this is such a big deal. Why gnash your teeth over an endorsement that was almost surely going to Clinton anyway.

This is no biggie in my opinion.

dajafi wrote on January 24, 2008 10:37 PM:

lombard, point taken. Myself, I'm trying (and too much failing) to take your advice and stay out of these arguments.

You're a credit to your candidate, unlike the "Baghdad Babs" type posts of a certain azure canine. (My god, little girl, isn't there an opening in Kim Jong Il's press office you can apply for?)

While we're sticking to substance, I'll commend an article I read tonight that potentially undercuts one of the reasons I've been so opposed to Clinton: that she couldn't get health care reform through. Ezra Klein makes a strong case that the political landscape has changed so much that Clinton, or any Dem president, could indeed win this fight regardless of the intensity of political opposition.

If she wins, and gets this through, I'll happily recant my criticisms, and hope someone uses the pen she signs it with to stab Bill Kristol in the neck.

lombard wrote on January 24, 2008 10:37 PM:

Nat wrote,

"Why not ask yourself WHY there are such discordant reactions rather than assume it's a plus for your side?"

I have asked myself that question and I've answered it to my satisfaction. The answer is because you are a bunch of immature, arrogant, elitist (Why, I don't know. Your intellects are far from impressive), Stalinist drama queens who cannot tolerate a world that will not accept their visions.

Do you think I haven't seen the likes of you before? I'm a man in my fifties who has followed politics since my teens.

The problem isn't us. The problem isn't Hillary. The problem isn't Obama. The problem is YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get over yourselves!

roo_P wrote on January 24, 2008 10:38 PM:

I agree with Drew M. on this: the endorsement is definitely one of the best I have seen this cycle.

I disagree with their conclusions but they covered a fairly broad area with some justifications in each part.

blackstar wrote on January 24, 2008 10:39 PM:

if you read the substance of the article, they seem to be endorsing the Clintons despite all the reasons for not endorsing the Clintons. they offer more reasons to oppose her candidacy than to support it, and never quite draw a clear line between their stated, "amphorous" rationale for support and the act itself.

in other words, they don't make a very strong case for their candidate.

lombard wrote on January 24, 2008 10:40 PM:

Dajafi, thanks for the information and the reference!

Gregor wrote on January 24, 2008 10:40 PM:

I see the NYT operates under the same delusion that affects HRC: they think they opposed the war in Iraq.

Hilarious.

But, let's be honest, the NYT which is a seriously good newspaper for straight reporting has been a disgrace editorially, for many years.

Mike wrote on January 24, 2008 10:41 PM:

Mike M,

I guess you missed my comment because it specifically addressed the editorial board's support of the Iraq War.

tony wrote on January 24, 2008 10:42 PM:

excellent post, dijafi.

Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 24, 2008 10:45 PM:

You wouldn't believe some of the horrible stuff I've seen posted by Hillary fans, so don't be calling Obama supporters mean. We're just venting right now, not out popping champagne. The Times endorsement is to be expected. What was not expected, by me, in myself, was a deep visceral reaction to and rejection of the Clintons this go-round. For instance, Kerry wasn't my pick in 2004, but I got on board. Same with Gore in 2000. Something is different this time, and I don't know if they'll be able to build a bridge to people like me, if indeed they secure the nomination and get to go for their third term. Not hateful, not vicious, just tired and turned-off. That, and my feeling that even if she has the most impressive intellect in the country, I think a Clinton Restoration is wrong, almost tragic, for the country. Same kind of thing I said in 2000, but this time it's worse. Because even though they might not be a "blood" dynasty, they live together! Hardly complimenting W, but he kept a certain distance from the old man. Oh, well.

DonnaG wrote on January 24, 2008 10:46 PM:

Interesting that the Times endorsement has embedded in its text an admonition to Hillary to essentially 'clean up her campaign tactics', though that admonition was done very low key.

blackstar wrote on January 24, 2008 10:48 PM:

wow, after rereading, this article is totally inane.

i have a lot of respect for the NYT in general, but they really do not make any sort of rationally coherent case for their candidate here.

BA wrote on January 24, 2008 10:51 PM:

Uncivil.Libertarian wrote on January 24, 2008 9:33 PM

You're kidding, right? Most of the country knows by now that Don Siegelman is a victim of a corrupt Republican administration (federal and state), a corrupt justice department, and a corrupt Alabama news media. The judge in the case has ties to the current governor, who most probably stole the election from Siegelman. Your Alabama press may not be disclosing all the details about the case, but several other papers and bloggers are. One place to find out information about the case is:

http://harpers.org/subjects/NoComment

Jason wrote on January 24, 2008 10:55 PM:

A continuation of the NYT's downward spiral.

There is no compelling argument in their endorsement. It just regurgitates Bill and Hillary's talking points about their experience and rolling the dice with Obama.

And how in the hell does she know more about the constitution than Obama, who taught constitutional law at U of C, one of the finest law schools in the country?

No accountability on the war, no mention of scandal, and a paragraph slightly scolding Bill's ruthless tactics.

Yeah, this is something to stick on the fridge and be proud of.

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 10:56 PM:

Bluepuppy, and you know what she is soooo hooooottttt. Did you see that yellow and black number wow!!!!! She looked sooooooo good.

lombard wrote on January 24, 2008 10:57 PM:

Kathleen wrote:

"I think a Clinton Restoration is wrong, almost tragic, for the country."

Well, I don't know why you say that. The majority of the country was satisfied with the direction of the country then (not a very common feeling in my lifetime) and Clinton made the Democratic brand respectable again. Prior to Clinton, the Democrats lost 4 of 5 presidential elections by landslides. The one win was a close one by Jimmy Carter over an unelected president in the post-Watergate era and he only won that due to Southern pride. since Clinton we are always in the game.

"Hardly complimenting W, but he kept a certain distance from the old man. Oh, well"

Yeah, and not listening to his father or his father's advisors may have been one of his biggest mistakes. If the son would have been anything like the father, we wouldn't have all the problems we have now.

blackstar wrote on January 24, 2008 10:58 PM:

and it's pretty hilarious how the vast majority of comments on this editoral on the NYT site include the words "...disappointed in your decision".

thebrainwasher! wrote on January 24, 2008 11:02 PM:

Stalinist drama queens

I'm sorry, what? Could you do me a favor and not insult the memories of my relatives who perished in deepest Siberia with this kind of rabid, witless hyperbole? Thanks, guy.

Tempest wrote on January 24, 2008 11:05 PM:

You all better get use to saying 'President McCain'.

FWIW I won't be voting for him.

thebrainwasher! wrote on January 24, 2008 11:06 PM:

Clinton made the Democratic brand respectable again

Yes, by retooling it to look a lot more like the Republican brand.

Mark F wrote on January 24, 2008 11:06 PM:

Yeah, Greg. The "Big One". The establishment newspaper endorses the establishment candidates. Imagine.

So much for unbiased reporting from the Times.

Matthew wrote on January 24, 2008 11:09 PM:

Kathleen in Maine, I don't get too disturbed by the hostile anti-Clinton crowd on the blog as they do not represent mainstream Democrats. These guys number in the 10s or 1,000s at best and won't measure a percent of vote in the primaries or general election. Their voices far outweigh their vote potential and, anyway, most claim plans to not vote. Spewing their rhetoric here might make them feel good, but it won't change the reality that Clinton is the best Democratic candidate and is our best chance for beating the Republicans in the fall.

And lest anyone forget, Bill is a great asset to Hillary, to the Democrats, and to the country. Recall, and for those too young to recall or who have been brainwashed by Republican propaganda, Bill is a successful 2-term Democratic president. The only one we've had in a very, very long time.

Mark F wrote on January 24, 2008 11:12 PM:

Tempest said:

"You all better get use to saying 'President McCain'."

Yeah. Interesting, isn't it, that the Times endorsed both Clinton AND McCain. Almost as if they thought they could sell a shitload of newspapers if there was an divisive battle. Almost as if they're thinking more about their campaign ad revenue than about what's good for America.

Ya think...?

LTD wrote on January 24, 2008 11:12 PM:

So, Obama supporters, since you won't vote for Hillary in the GE because she is so right wing, which of the following progressives you will vote for?

Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani?

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 11:15 PM:

What's great about this thread, for all the nonsense, is that, at the very least, people can post what they want. I wish the same were true for the threads over at HillaryClinton.com, where no dissenters are allowed...

Joe wrote on January 24, 2008 11:15 PM:

The new rule, per one comment, is that "dynasty" requires blood relationship. Nice trick. Eva Peron, no dynasty. A Bush can be in office ad nauseam, no dynasty, as long as wives are involved somehow. How about adopted or stepchildren? No problem!

As to Bobby Kennedy, his brother was in power for THREE YEARS (not eight) and there was no other family duo who recently was in power for 12 years. In fact, BK could in a fashion be seen as a proxy for a tragically shortened presidency. Suffice to say, poor example.

Honestly, the dynasty thing troubles me too. Standing alone, it probably wouldn't do it for me, but I am concerned with HC for other reasons. But, it is a serious problem for me, and just wishing it away as if it is not a very serious concern given our ideals is dubious.

His not so ideal involvement in the race thus far underlines too he will have a role in the administration too. As to the 1990s, any number of problems can be raised about that moderate Republican administration, including his personal selfishness and so forth.

But, hey, HC got NYT's endorsement. Since NYT is such a liberal paper, that means HC is a great liberal! Mmm. Tasty kool aid.

LTD wrote on January 24, 2008 11:16 PM:

I am practicing to say Madame President! Yeah! That sounds great!

Mark F wrote on January 24, 2008 11:17 PM:

Matthew said: "I don't get too disturbed by the hostile anti-Clinton crowd on the blog as they do not represent mainstream Democrats."

Matthew, I've got news for you: the "mainstream Democrats" represent approximately 35% of the vote. The rest of us are voting against Hillary. And you know what? For us, Hillary in the White House would be no better than Mitt Romney in the White House. They're both a couple of careerist phonies.

Kathleen in Maine is right to be worried.

LTD wrote on January 24, 2008 11:21 PM:

Mark F, isn't it a wee bit presumptuous of you to talk about 35% of the vote? Talk about yourself and go vote for Romney, McCain or Giuliani. What the heck? Go vote for David Duke even.

But, you don't know anything about 35%.

Whit wrote on January 24, 2008 11:22 PM:

She was the wife of a governor. That got her a seat on the Wal-Mart board, where she got the unions recognized. No, wait.... Well, she was the wife of a president. That got her head position in health care reform, where she got the nation universal health care. No, wait.... Well she was elected president. That revealed how the spouse of someone with advance abilities - say neurosurgery - has been able to vicariously acquire those very capabilities by talk over the dining room table. No, wait, it seems she has lobotomized the Times editorial board....

Mark F wrote on January 24, 2008 11:22 PM:

lombard wrote:

"The majority of the country was satisfied with the direction of the country then (not a very common feeling in my lifetime) and Clinton made the Democratic brand respectable again."

Yeah, right. Outside of the blowjobs and the impeachment and the polarization and the sticking cigars up high school aged girls and the cum-stained blue dress and the bombing of the aspirin factory and Paula Jones and the lies about "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Bill was great. Verrry respectable.

thedrainwasher! wrote on January 24, 2008 11:23 PM:

Bill is a successful 2-term Democratic president

Fixed.

As for successful, that's debatable and really depends on your yardstick and vantage point. After nearly eight years of Bush-fils, you're goddamn right Bill looks successful. But in a broader context, his presidency has more than its share of cockroaches. I don't think I'm alone in my belief that in many ways, he sold large parts of the progressive agenda down river during his time in office. From setting back health care to punting multiple times on gay rights to welfare reform... Some would add NAFTA. I'm not opposed to trade, so I won't.

Mark F wrote on January 24, 2008 11:25 PM:

LTD wrote: "Mark F, isn't it a wee bit presumptuous of you to talk about 35% of the vote?"

No, it's not, actually. It's a fact. That's the core constituency of the Democratic Party. Approximately equal to the core constituency of the Republican Party. And the Republicans and many of the rest of us would rather see McCain in office than Hillary.

Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 24, 2008 11:26 PM:

To Lombard and Matthew, I agree that Bill is an asset to Hillary as she was to him. The reason I find a restoration tragic is that I'm a believer in the axiom that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Simply and boringly, they had their shot. Not that that's a reason to vote for Obama, but it feels like they've been gaming the system for their own aggrandizement. I recognize that they are brilliant, truly devoted to the greater good, etc., but I think it's wrong for them to return to the pinnacle of world power. Back to my George Bush comment, about keeping his distance from his father...I never approved of him being in there in the first place for all the baggage it brings. Yeah, he overdid the pushing away, but at least a former president wasn't literally in bed with him. If 43 had been anyone else, he or she would have sought out Bush the elder's advice. W was stupid enough to screw it up without having the psychological father-son issues, but ohe wouldn't be in there if his name wasn't Bush. As Hillary would have no chance if her name wasn't Clinton. It makes my head spin. Gotta go to bed. Thanks for letting me share and not jumping down my throat.

foxx wrote on January 24, 2008 11:34 PM:

I am surprised actually. Given the anti-Clinton slant of their editorials and most of their columnists.

The Times is right. Obama is not ready. Hillary is.

I relate to the post about the college students. Having been one once myself and wanting to run the world and having a lot of illusions about what that would be like. I hope Hillary will be able to keep them involved.

Yancey wrote on January 24, 2008 11:38 PM:

I have to agree with the NY Slimes on one point: Hilary is truly a uniter. To wit, she unites people in disgust, from the left, right and center.

I couldn't have said it better myself. That's why this lifelong Democrat, one-time Clinton lover, will be voting for McCain, Bloomberg, or staying home in November. Enough is enough! Jeebus people, WAKE UP!

LTD wrote on January 24, 2008 11:38 PM:

Mark F, even if I accept your 35% number (which I don't) you are still presumptuous talking about the "many of the rest of us." I would venture to guess that you represent a very tiny percentage of Obama supporters who would vote for McCain over Hillary! You know why? Because most Obama supporters hate this Iraq war and want our troops brought home. McCain said today in the debate that he thinks we are winning the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home would be waving a "white flag of surrender." I doubt very much there are very many of people like you who would vote for McCain.

Mark F wrote on January 24, 2008 11:42 PM:

thedrainwasher! wrote:

"I don't think I'm alone in my belief that in many ways, he sold large parts of the progressive agenda down river during his time in office."

No, you're not alone. Bill and Hillary are Republicrats. They are totally committed to corrupting the liberal agenda. And NAFTA was one of the worst things to happen to the U.S.

Not many people remember this, but Bill Clinton was actually an incredibly shitty president. I was there. I remember.

The thing that really turned me against Bill Clinton was his phony plan to "protect" the Mational Forests--a plan that actually changed almost nothing while painting him as an "environmentalist". It closed road building in the National Forests while leaving open commercial and "forest health" logging as well as helicopter removal and bulldozing. It was a gift to the Republicans, and it left America's last old growth forest--the Tongass National Forest in Alaska--totally unprotected. Bill Clinton is a phony, and pseudo Democrat and a covert Republican, and a complete hypocrite.

Joe wrote on January 24, 2008 11:44 PM:

"Some would add NAFTA. I'm not opposed to trade, so I won't."

They are not the same thing, are they?

As to HC being ready? Well, for something, true enough. As to the slant of the editorials, often that was personality based.

In many ways, HC reflects the NYT more than Obama. See, e.g., the Miller coverage pre-war, and the after the fact "oh, we didn't know. our bad."

Mark F wrote on January 24, 2008 11:47 PM:

LTD:

"I would venture to guess that you represent a very tiny percentage of Obama supporters who would vote for McCain over Hillary!"

You're probably right. I probably won't vote for McCain. I'll probably just stay home. In the meantime, every frikking Republican on the planet will show up to vote against her.

Read the comments on this board. They are overwhelmingly anti-Clinton. America doesn't want Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. We're sick and tired of dynastic rule. We want a change.

David B. wrote on January 24, 2008 11:50 PM:

I was mildly annoyed that the Times endorsed Empress Livia, but it reads like someone repeating Clinton talking points, only if they didn't care. That's the best they can do?

Jack Frost wrote on January 24, 2008 11:58 PM:

Obama supporters,

That is because the New York Times endorsed candidates on their merits and not on their emotional hatred for a personality.

Mark F wrote on January 25, 2008 12:03 AM:

This article in The Nation expresses the situation as well as anything I've read"

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080204/howl2

Even if Hillary wins, she loses.

Steve U wrote on January 25, 2008 12:04 AM:

Even a casual reader of the NY Times knows that it has long had a not too subltle bias toward Hillary. The endorsement is just redundant really.

Mark F wrote on January 25, 2008 12:05 AM:

Jack Frost:

No, this is because the New York Times places ad buys and newspaper sales above integrity and truth. They backed the invasion of Iraq because they knew a war would sell papers. They're backing Hillary for the same reason.

jds wrote on January 25, 2008 12:07 AM:

To anyone who believes Hillary is electable in the general election:

Consider this; Hillary has based her entire campaign on her "experience". What if McCain is the republican nominee? Hillary's "experience" will look pretty silly in comparison to McCain. Without Independents, the whitehouse can't be won. About a week of negative campaigning against Hillary would effectively make her negatives so high, she'll be even more unelectable.

Just like alot of us keep saying.

Mark F wrote on January 25, 2008 12:12 AM:

jds, you are right on the money. Hillary doesn't have the slightest chance.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 12:16 AM:

The NYT opposed the invasion of Iraq? You truly are a dolt, Greg.

Uncivil.Libertarian wrote on January 25, 2008 12:26 AM:

BA, not exactly. I watched him for 4 years after I voted for him, and this was but one instance where I felt his ethics were grossly compromised. This was merely the one that was most actionable. I don't doubt that there is corruption in the Bush Administration, just as there was during the Clinton Administration. That said, even corrupt administrations prosecute the right people for the right reasons sometimes. My statement stands, and your conspiracy theory is rejected in this instance.

foxx wrote on January 25, 2008 12:39 AM:

I hope when Obama loses on Feb 5, he will concede to Hillary and not force the Democratic Party to waste its resources on a battle he cannot win, when we should be focussing on the general election.

That will be the test of whether he really is a Democrat.

Tempest wrote on January 25, 2008 12:55 AM:

Oh yeah-and you heard it hear first-NYT will endorse McCain in the Fall

ARealNewYorkerForObama wrote on January 25, 2008 1:00 AM:

New Yorkers for Obama! Forget the Times editorial board -- come out and show you support this Saturday: WALK FOR OBAMA. 11am at 130th and Lenox, Noon at Union Square. Both walking to a 2PM Rally in Columbus Circle. RSVP and more details here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4rc9j

Show the world that New Yorkers want a President with integrity and vision.
OBAMA '08!

ChrisNBama wrote on January 25, 2008 1:06 AM:

Fox,

The AP is reporting that a winner will not be coronated on "Super Tuesday" and there may not even be a conclusive front runner. You can read the story here:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SUPER_TUESDAY_NOT_OVER?SITE=ORLAG&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Bob Bailey wrote on January 25, 2008 1:07 AM:

What I don't understand is "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."

So, how can she be trusted to do better in the future? I don’t think she can.

And I have major problem with her husband "as a former President" campaigning for her. It is us-seemly and demeans his position.
Bob

Mark Kraft wrote on January 25, 2008 1:25 AM:

I guess it's easy for the NYT to let Hillary off the hook for beating the drums for war... given that they're even guiltier than she was.

Now if only the NYT and HRC could bring my friend Mike back to life. He *KNEW* Iraq was a bad idea, but he died there anyway, because Bush, Hillary, and others sent him there to deal with the "threat to the U.S." posed by a country that couldn't even fire missiles more than 80 miles from its own border.

Personally, I have *NO* sympathy and no foregiveness for Hillary Clinton, because I have dead friends and a bunch of others who are busted up, either with PTSD or physically, living half-lives in a permanent vicodin haze.

They're unable to fit in and cope well because of what they've gone through, the effects of being permanently in pain, permanently medicated, and, oftentimes, because they lost everything they held dear -- girlfriends, friends, families, their youth, their health, their mental stability -- over there. All too often, all they feel is a combination of anger, frustration, and despair. Can Hillary fix that too?

I can say in all honesty that she's the least liked candidate amongst the OIF veterans I know, both liberal, Independent, and conservative. (Obama and Ron Paul are generally their favorites, with McCain a distant 3rd.) It would be a slap in their collective faces to make Hillary Clinton their commander-in-chief.

As for the NYT endorsement, you have to wonder whether it will be an anti-endorsement in most parts of the country. It certainly won't sell with the people I know.

Charidan wrote on January 25, 2008 2:00 AM:

I am very disappointed how ungracious some of the Obama supporters take this endorsement. I bet twenty four hours before, if you take a poll, they will all tell you how much they admire the Times. Now they hate it. It's not alright to throw a temper tantrum just because you didn't get what you want. Sign of lack of maturity?
Charidan

Joe Lisboa wrote on January 25, 2008 2:05 AM:

I hope Hillary will be able to keep [college students] involved.

In droves. Unfortunately, it'll be a legion of college Republicans frothing at the mouth to abet her destruction in the General.

That is because the New York Times endorsed candidates on their merits and not on their emotional hatred for a personality.

I'm not really sure that a Hillary-backer should discount so casually the reality of "emotional hatred [of] personality" and its completely ****ing predictable impact on the outcome of a general election. If it weren't so brainlessly Pyrrhic, I'd just laugh off the HRC camp's ability to trumpet "electability" and realpolitik in the face of, ah, reality. But, whatever. If you subscribe to the NYT, I'm going to wager that you didn't just lose your assembly line job to Bill's NAFTA or a brother to a war that Hillary endorsed and authorized.

facta non verba wrote on January 25, 2008 2:47 AM:

Taylor Marsh had this to say and how Obama supporters can look anyone in the eye with a straight face after learning how Obama first was elected to the Illinois State Senate. He did so by surreptitiously on the last day of the nominating process send a horde of lawyers to the Chicago Election Commission and challenging the signatures on the nominating petitions of the other candidates. He succeeded in removing all other four contenders including the long-serving incumbent, a progressive liberal and a grandmother, Mrs. Alice Palmer. It seems when Barack wants something he just goes and disembowels the opposition. Another allegation now circulating is that he got to run against Alan Keyes because Obama released through his surrogates charges of marital infidelity against his main opponent, Mr. Ryan.

Here's Taylor Marsh's piece:

I'm supporting Clinton, a decision that came about over a long process, inspired by the sexist and one-sided media coverage, which has now been proven and in which I played a major role. I've seen her in action many times, as she proved to me she's got the mental agility and intellectual toughness to go through a general election campaign and win. I have disagreed with her on several foreign policy issues, including Iraq, and Kyl-Lieberman, among others and no doubt will again. I also believe we simply must win the election in November. To that end, whom we nominate is critical. I'm convinced Clinton can withstand the onslaught the Republicans are preparing for us, swiftboating, dirty tricks and all.

For the record, I could also willingly support John Edwards because I think he, too, can win, though he's not in position to come close to the nomination right now. But last night he got back to the man I believed in when this campaign started and before his campaign team ruined his message.

However, I do not think Barack Obama can win, regardless of his unmistakable talents, especially since he's campaigning as something other than what he is, which his record proves and offers the Republicans a treasure trove of gifts.

Contrary to what Mr. Obama's unhinged fans are saying, this isn't personal. I just don't think he can withstand what the Republicans will throw at him, and I don't think Democrats should take the chance. I also don't know what his politics portends for Democrats, unlike Clinton (and Edwards), because of Obama's easy willingness to straddle all lines in order to be all things to all people, regardless of ideology.

Again, I don't believe Mr. Obama did anything illegal in the Rezko matter. That's not the issue at all. But Antoin "Tony" Rezko was one of Barack Obama's main political patrons going back many years; he backed him; and he's inextricably woven throughout Obama's political career, starting in 1995, though their friendship goes back to 1990. Obama won't answer all of the questions about Rezko, refusing even to name the man in a Democratic debate for fear voters might do a search and find out the truth.

At the very least he's Obama's Bernie Kerik on judgment; but that even minimizes the power and reach of Rezko, which we'll be finding more about come February 25th. Outside of Chicago, the press hasn't made Rezko an issue, with some people yawning over the relationship. Obama's Democratic challengers haven't made it an issue either, protecting a gifted politician of their own; that is until it was raised last night by Clinton, but only after Obama threw Wal-Mart at her, even though he's got his own problems on that score. The truth is that I don't trust what we're getting in Barack Obama. The Rezko story is only one reason why.

Maybe it's why John Edwards is committed to staying in the race. He's waiting for Obama's hope facade to fall. Though there's no hint whatsoever that Obama's legions of fans have any interest in the truth and certainly not the record behind Mr. Hope:

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

• Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

• Six buildings are currently boarded up.

• Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

• Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

• At least a dozen times, the city of Chicago sued Rezmar for failure to heat buildings.

For five weeks, the Sun-Times sought to interview Obama about Rezko and the housing deals. His staff wanted written questions. It responded Sunday but left many questions unanswered. Other answers didn't directly address the question.

Jack Frost wrote on January 25, 2008 3:28 AM:

facta non verba,

wow, Taylor Marsh has the most competent reasoning I've seen yet about Barack Obama falling short.

Catherine wrote on January 25, 2008 3:55 AM:

I'm still laughing. The New York Times was against the war? I couldn't have guessed it.

At least they managed to also endorse McCain...who will be President if Hillary win the Dem Nom for sure.

Hillary, the woman who has to bring her man to the job interview in order to get hired for the job. Back in 1998, I had to explain what a BJ was to my then 8 and 11 year old daughters. Now I have to explain this too? How so not progressive or liberating!

How can she even argue about this war, after having voted for it without reading the NIE? Guess that her and the War Hero will only argue about how to get it fought better, instead of a Dem being able to call the War hero out on his own lack of due diligence in supporting this total fiasco. That's why we will lose! Hillary who never attended any National security meetings or had national security clearance the entire time she was in the White House. But I'm so thankful that the NYT counts pillow talk as experience!

Anyway, I find this all too humorous to continue on. We finally had the chance to excite millions of voters to come out and vote, a chance to show a new face to the world and instead all the NYT wants us to have is Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. I feel trapped in a Ground Hog Day movie!

Mark Kraft wrote on January 25, 2008 4:58 AM:

"Taylor Marsh had this to say..."

And I have this to say about Taylor Marsh.

She is a Hillary shill, being fed low-quality dirt and innuendo directly from the Clinton campaign, and who has repeatedly lied in an attempt to smear Barack Obama.

She went from being Miss Missouri -- what a feminist! -- to being a failed actress, a romance columnist, a minor radio personality, and now apparently, a shill-for-hire by politicians and lobbyists.

She's swallowing Clinton talkingpoints like it was koolaide, and is simply not balanced or credible on the issues, reporting unsubstantiated gossip.

Frankly, Democrats nationwide never even heard of her before she started spewing slime in this campaign. She's not even noteworthy enough to merit a single mention in Wikipedia, and has only been blogging for two years. She claims experience on foriegn policy and the military, and yet has no background in either, having studied acting.

Ultimately, it seems that she's chosen a career as little more than a public relations mouthpiece, like so many former beauty pageant winners whose looks have gone south. A Goebbels for the gullible.

Mark Kraft wrote on January 25, 2008 5:35 AM:

I should clarify one thing about Taylor Marsh. She is not a radio personality and doesn't have a radio show anywhere in America.

Rather, she has used a online radio blogging site for about a year... one where ANYONE can sign up and start their own show.

Stylistically, I admit that she is capable of talking. That said, she has nothing credible to say, which makes her a pretty good fit for the Hillary campaign really.

Personally, I'd rather not take my political advice from a romance advice columnist... but hey, go ahead if that floats your boat.

conway wrote on January 25, 2008 5:37 AM:

Wow: the Hillary haters are peeing in their pants. They should join Michelle malkin since they have the same high bile content and they don't use their brains. Take a look and a broad voting cross section across America and see what they want. Just now it's the economy stupid. Those who want a uniter should look at Chimpsky.

Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 25, 2008 6:51 AM:

How much money does Bill Clinton get from U.S. taxpayers every year to maintain his position as an ex-President? I think payments should stop while he is campaigning full time for The Clinton Restoration. Granted, he can keep his Secret Service detail, but that brings another thought to mind...who is paying for all their travel and accommodation while he's on the road? Let the campaign pay all their expenses, other than their government salaries.

The protection costs associated with Hillary and Barack's campaigns meet a different standard, because they are the candidates. At least I think Hillary is.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 8:02 AM:

You think the NYT endorsement will help in a general election?

We'll see.

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 8:23 AM:

Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 25, 2008 6:51 AM:
How much mone

>>> Like all Obama supporters, you are a very petty person!

Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 8:36 AM:

Catherine wrote on January 25, 2008 3:55 AM:
I'm still laughing. The New York Times was against the war? I couldn't have guessed it.

>>> Catherine, my darling, I have to say I feel sorry for you. You are so ignorant. Do you know there is a separation between news department and the editorial department? NYT editorial has been consistently against the war, from the very beginning! People used to joke that NYT editorial got their news from Washington Post and WP editorial got their news from NYT. If you don't understand NYT editorial has been a force for good for so many years, you are totally lost. For your information, NYT has not endorsed a republican for president for about 100 years?

Jane wrote on January 25, 2008 8:42 AM:

All this talk of Hilary's superior judgment. Are economists on both sides not describing Obama's economic plan as superior? And how are Obama's foreign policy positions so naive when informed by the advice of former centrist Clinton advisors?

I support Obama but he has failed to convince voters and the media that he is as in command of the issues as is Hillary. He is not the policy wonk that Hillary is, but he needs to demonstrate his superior judgment on issues beyond Iraq. And he needs to argue why years of experience (Cheney) or policy wonkishness (Bill Clinton) did not get the job done.

Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 25, 2008 8:43 AM:

Hey Anonymous--that's not a petty, a fraidy-cat handle? I'm as petty as Hillary and Bill. Taught by experts. Prettier, too.

Cheerio!

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 9:09 AM:

Yeah, thanks so fucking much for the endorsement of Hillary, Grey Lady... Maybe you can tell -- no, I'm not feeling very grateful.

Somehow I was expecting this response from Frankly0. Really, I am mostly just glad to see that his head did not explode. All day yesterday was spent solemnly informing us of the vicious anti-Clinton bias of the NYT, so it must have come as quite a shock to see the newspaper write such a thoughtful and sober endorsement of the lady. Good for Sen Clinton, I say. She is a good senator to the people of New York and she has earned the support of her home-town paper.

marcus wrote on January 25, 2008 9:51 AM:

if you read the full endorsement in the times, it's not really that positive for her. it mentions obama in a positive light more than it does her.

dcshungu wrote on January 25, 2008 10:03 AM:

I could have written the text for this endorsement. It would indeed have reflected badly on Hillary had the NYT endorsed Edwards (I was sure Obama was not going to be their pick. Say anything you wish about the NYT, you just cannot call them kool-aid drinkers).

Go Hillary!

DCS, NYC

merryll wrote on January 25, 2008 10:15 AM:

There's the 'liberal' Times for you. The most conservative candidate of the bunch.

And when did they oppose the Iraq invasion? That's not the way I rememer it. Good point, Steve. They are as mainstream as mainstream media gets.

And what's with endorsing McCain too? Do we get to vote twice?

dcshungu wrote on January 25, 2008 10:30 AM:

And what's with endorsing McCain too? Do we get to vote twice?

Someone who does not even know that we are still doing the primaries (read: the endorsement is for one candidate for the Dem primaries and one candidate for the Repub primaries. The NYT will endorse again for the GE), and then calls Hillary the most "conservative" candidate while doubting the NYT's 'liberal' creds has had too much kool-aid.

ihatebeets wrote on January 25, 2008 10:34 AM:

Yeah, well, the NYT endorsed John Kerry in 2004. I don't think people pay much attention anymore to newspaper endorsements. Besides, Hillary is the junior senator from New York, Rangel has endorsed her - who else would get the nod from the NYT?

sam i am wrote on January 25, 2008 10:38 AM:

What else would you expect from newpaper that shows no interest in finding out what happen a mile away on 9/11, and every interest in backing Bush's story.

Peep wrote on January 25, 2008 10:39 AM:

A non Dem view, Hillary Clintons Special Interest Group is the American People that’s obvious to us non partisans and she is tough enough to bring the focus of this country back to us and move the Congressional discretionary donor giveaways and put them back in the coffer of the American People don’t make a mistake and send us a candidate we cant get around.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 10:44 AM:

if you read the full endorsement in the times, it's not really that positive for her. it mentions obama in a positive light more than it does her.

I cannot agree with this assessment. I grant that the endorsement mentions Sen Obama favorably, but it also makes a very forceful and winsome pitch for Sen Clinton. She comes off looking quite well in this endorsement, and deservedly so. It is a big catch for her and I congratulate her campaign (not that they really care what I, some random Obama supporting-twerp on the internet, say).

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 10:52 AM:

I am shocked, shocked I tell you that clinton supporters are praising this endorsement. Did you people read it? The times called her MRS. CLINTON!!!!!! That's right they called her MRS. CLINTON. The times is sexist and mysogynist and hillary-haters for calling her MRS. CLINTON. As far as the times is concerned she is chattel and owned by mr. bill. How on earth can you clinton supporters praise this endorsement after that slap in the face and blatantly sexist remark. Unbelievable.

bupalos wrote on January 25, 2008 10:59 AM:

I don't quibble with the times' endorsement. I just hope people see the implications:

>>>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.>>>

Think about the assumptions of this graf. First, it is quite flatly based on fear and negativity. We can't risk going for the upside because of the huge known and unknown problems of the country. Second, for some reason Hillary is "more qualified right now" to start "immediately." Why is that? A few more years in the senate? Does anyone not understand that this is because of her surrogacy for Bill's administration? This is the endorsement of an incumbent. You can argue about who that incumbent is, but this is inherently a "stay the course" kind of endorsement, complete with a tacit admission that we may have to stay in Iraq for a long time.

As I said, I don't know who could quibble with this. Aside from the preposterous "unity" claim, I think it is an accurate representation of the truer parts of the Clinton message (certainly moreso than the ridiculous gloming on to the "change" mantra that Mrs. Inevitable started chanting after losing Iowa.)

Bupalos wrote on January 25, 2008 11:03 AM:

>>>As far as the times is concerned she is chattel and owned by mr. bill. >>>

While that is a crude way to put it, if you think about the implications of their arguments, that is about half of why they are endorsing her.

It's those big unknown problems that we have to be ready for on day one. Like vast stockpiles of WMD, for instance.

Edwards for president wrote on January 25, 2008 11:03 AM:

Typical MSM, ignore the progressive, with the impicit endorsement of globalisation, and go with the corporate favorite.

Michael A wrote on January 25, 2008 11:08 AM:

Bupalos, just in case it wasn't obvious, I was repeating what clinton supporters have thrown at me and others for using the term "mrs." I obviously don't believe the charges leveled by the clinton supporters. Man you have to be soooooo pc nowadays. Clinton people are soooooo sensative.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 11:21 AM:

You didn't hear us screaming, sneering, and ranting like mental cases when Obama got a string of political and print endorsements a week or two ago.

Er, yes we did, as it happens. Some of the highlights from last week:

ineedalife on Jan 17 concerning the Leahy endorsement - Great, one loser recognizes a kindred spirit. Another endorsement from the spineless caucus. This is the guy who won't even follow up his own subpeonas. And lets radical right wing Supreme court nominees sail thru his committee.

eric on Jan 17 concerning the Leahy endorsement - No surprise that he endorses the candidate who has already capitulated on the central Democratic program, Social Security. 'Here Republicans take social security, please. Just don't raise your voice at me. Please, can't we just all get along?' or 'Yes, I was against your war, but you can count on me. I won't vote against it. No siree, not me. Of course I'll keep troops there forever to"protect American interests and fight terrorists". Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Can we be pals now?'

hhh on Jan 10 concerning the Kerry endorsement - I just want to know does this mean Obama will sell us out the way Kerry did.

Anonymous Jan 10 concerning the Kerry endorsement - Why all these losers (Lamont, Kerry, Bradley) endorsing Obama? Do they have something in common?

Anonymous on Jan 11 concerning the Napolitano endorsement - A woman aggressively gets into the other one's way. It is sickening to see this happen... It is nice to see the Democratic establishment ganging up against Hillary... Hillary all the way!

Jane on Jan 10 concerning the Lamont endorsement - The point about Lieberman was not that they continue to be in cahoots but that Obama had the bad judgment to sell out his supposed antiwar principles in the CT primary by supporting Lieberman strongly. And is a hypocrite to attack Hillary on one vote of disputed significance while supporting Lieberman who is a complete war mongerer... In short, Obama is an unprincipled, opportunistic sucker.

WaveFlipper on Jan 10 concerning the Kerry endorsement - Clinton elected-political genius.

Gore fails--Always had been politically incompetent.

Kerry fails--never a factor in the Senate--politically incompetent.

Gore gives kiss of death to Dean.
Kerry gives kiss of death to Obama...

I'll go with the Clintons anytime.

As you can see, some (but not all) Clinton supporters have been every bit as unhinged in their scorn and loathing of Obama as some (but not all) Obama supporters have been in their scorn and loathing of Clinton. It is a continuous surprise to me that partisans of each side are almost congenitally blind to the loonies on their own sides even as they bewail the loonies on the other side. I agree that there are many Obama supporters on this thread whose remarks make me cringe, but please spare me the sanctimony.

In Virginia wrote on January 25, 2008 11:29 AM:

Maybe mine was a too-careless reading of the NYT's endorsement -- a series of citations of the paper's past disagreements with "Mrs. Clinton" on her positions and performance. Yet somehow, she's the only one who'll be ready on Day One.

bob wrote on January 25, 2008 11:40 AM:

Odd mix of Kool-Aid drinking. They write it like her campaign gave it to them, like when a governor endorses a candidate.

It's weird that they cite her "qualifications," whatever those are, but fault Obama on specifics, despite a campaign website full of specifics, at the very least every single bit as specific as Clinton's.

So there are two BS points.

They also completely skim over her total lack of judgment in favor of political posturing in the Iraq AUMF vote, and Obama has talked in far more detail about his awareness of the consequences of withdrawal. Watch any debate where the topic has come up, and he's dealt with it much better than she has.

It just feels like a real hometown effort, like they could have written a real endorsement of her but they just didn't feel like wasting the time and energy to do so, and instead just cut and pasted a bunch of her campaign's talking points.

bnb wrote on January 25, 2008 12:04 PM:

It was a business decision, had nothing to do with the best candidate.

lombard wrote on January 25, 2008 2:45 PM:

Greg DeLassus wrote:

"It is a continuous surprise to me that partisans of each side are almost congenitally blind to the loonies on their own sides even as they bewail the loonies on the other side. I agree that there are many Obama supporters on this thread whose remarks make me cringe, but please spare me the sanctimony."

OK, OK, you make your point about as well as it could have been made and I'll confess blindness to sour grapes and nastiness on my side. You have also done an extremely admirable job of admonishing the partisans on your side and I'll admit that I haven't lifted a finger against any pro-Clinton poster. I admire you for taking responsibility for that task even though I don't feel responsibility for doing the same.

lombard wrote on January 25, 2008 3:01 PM:

Greg DeLassus,

Let me add one more thing in our defense. What has made us particularly contemptious of the Obama supporters is the Naderite utterances of many of them. I had nothing against those who voted for Nader in 2000, but their votes made a significant contribution to the last 8 years and I would think those types of voters would have learned their lesson. To hear those things again infuriates us. You know that I am not talking about YOU. Your position has been very clear.

I thought that Obama's statement the other day that Hillary's supporters would all vote for him but his supporters would be less likely to vote for her was unconscionable. Let's put aside the fact that I think he is taking a little too much for granted about those who would vote for Hillary. Even if he believes that statement, he should not utter it because:

1) the statement is bound to set-off a wave of resentment among those who remember 2000 (talk about statements that are not conducive to party unity!);

2) he is telegraphing to his supporters that it is OK for them to bully others into accepting his candidacy by proposing an "or-else" argument;

3) shows an uncomfortable level unreserved meglomania

bnb wrote on January 25, 2008 8:23 PM:

I voted for Nader in 2000 and don't feel guilty about it. I lived in NY.

Why, in all the stories on TPM is there no discussion of getting rid of the hated electoral college? It's not difficult. Doesn't take a constitutional amendment. Your state just has to decide to cast its electoral votes for the winner of the popular election. If just a few states do that, the monster will be slain and we will have a democracy. New Jersey seems poised to do it.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)