New York Times Endorsements
I just saw that the NYT has endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain. It’s like we have the same mind. The New York Times is notoriously liberal but it is still nice to see that they are assessing this race in exactly the same way that I have been. I’ve been saying for months that I disagree with McCain but I prefer him over the others because he has character. And, of course, I believe that Hillary is the most qualified candidate to be President.
McCain
My blog: (Jan 9, 2008) “I am glad that John McCain won the New Hampshire primary tonight. There is no way that I am going to agree with any Republican, so I base my preference on personality factors. McCain has integrity and I respect him. My dream showdown would be McCain vs. Hillary. I want to see that the best of each party gets the nomination.”
NYT: (Jan 25, 2008) “We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president…We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle.”
Clinton
My blog: (Jan 6, 2008) “I like Barack Obama, but I support Hillary. Here’s the thing: Obama is likable and passionate and a good public speaker. But I do not think that charisma is enough to prove leadership. I would love to vote for Obama someday but not this year…Obama is exciting but inexperienced. I will always vote for competence over charisma. While I agree with Obama on issues and would completely support him if he gets the nomination, I think that Hillary would be a better President.”
NYT: (Jan 25, 2008) “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.”
So, yeah, I should totally be on the NYT’s editorial board. I’ll be waiting by the phone for the job offer. 
2 comments so far
Leave a reply
Bill Clinton’s presidency was, in most respects, a disaster. He promised health care reform. He promised equal protection for gays in the military. He signed off on severe limitations on federal habeas corpus. He helped put the country into a recession, that old George helped create. (Bush’s presidency is well outside bounds of tolerable, while Clinton’s was well within those bounds.)
In 1980 most Republicans would have agreed with Nixon that, “…we’re all Keynesians now.” But Reagan and the conservatives changed all that. Not even Hillary would agree that the government has a positive obligation to intervene in the market place to ensure “fundamental fairness.” Bill did nothing to reverse the underlying political ground of our Republic. You don’t achieve anything without drawing lines in the sand. The next President will be a democrat with a solid majority in both houses (just like Bill and Hillary had the first time). Why waste it on a candidate who signed on to the Iraq war; refused to apologize for the vote; signed on to Presidential war authority in Iran; and, refuses to draw a line between the war and the current recession. (Hint: look at the size of the defense budget, including special war appropriations. Maybe the recession is about “guns and butter.”)
Shocking that the media establishment would back the establishmnet choices in both parties. Shocking that neither the media nor party establishments have a thing to say about AIPAC or the Hunt Oil Co.s illegal contracts with the Kurds. Shocking that neither the media nor party establishments have a thing to say about supply-side manipulation at OPEC and price-gouging in Texas. Shocking that Mr. Hunt and his peers donate in abundance to both parties. Utterly shocking. Then again, it takes a village.