This entry was posted on 1/24/2008 11:19 PM and is filed under 2008 Election, All Posts.
The NYT endorses Hillary. It's one of their classic, totally schizophrenic establishment ass-kissings. Much reminds me of their pathetic, self-flagellating endorsement of Republican George Pataki in 2002.
As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)
1/25/2008 10:52 AM
Aaron wrote:
One gets the impression they're endorsing her because she keeps a cleaner desk. I can understand that, given the last two terms of complete administrative incompetance. But I find their dismissiveness of the other opponents baffling. The editors don't like that Edwards has changed his mind? Great. But is that worse than not taking responsibility at all for some truly rotten votes? What about Barack Obama, exactly, does the Times consider "unformed"? Is it his lack of cynicism?
Likewise, how does one acknowledge that someone's running a dirty campaign, and then merely hope that she'll behave more charitably? It isn't going to happen, folks. The Clinton team is seeing too much short-term benefit to their campaign to stop the Swift-boating now-- and that is what they're doing, make no mistake.
On the bright side-- and there is a bright side, really-- I believe that Hillary is in most respects a stronger candidate than Bill was. I think she actually cares more about progressive reform than he, despite her (earned) cynicism about the process. Reply to this
1/25/2008 10:41 PM
bobby wrote:
I find it pretty amazing that someone feels she has a "cleaner desk," after all the investigations into her business practices that plagued the clinton early years, however unfounded they were, and the personal problems that plagued the later years.
As far as her being more progressive, I have always felt that she is more conservative than Bill. As offensive as the whole "first black president" notion is, his relationship with the african american community is not just based on personality, but I believe his southern upbringing has given him more of an understanding of the black plight than she has ever understood. She was raised in a Republican religious household and it has always influenced her judgment. Reply to this
1/26/2008 6:00 PM
Aaron wrote:
My "cleaner desk" metaphor refers purely to the Times' belief in her bureaucratic abilities, not the perception of her integrity. Indeed, the press at large seems curiously undisturbed by larger questions of political ethics these days. That Rudy Giuliani was ever considered a front-runner is the surest sign of the depths of this nation's cynicism. The man doesn't merely have skeletons in his closet; he has the entire cast of villains from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
But I digress.
Whatever her personal inclinations, I do think Hillary's campaign platform is a good deal more progressive than Bill's was. Then again, he was running in a time when the word "liberal" still had toxic implications in the mainstream. Reply to this
1/28/2008 7:50 PM
Suzanne wrote:
And you know in the debate Barack said he was lousy with paper work. I bet you anything Hillary actually has a cleaner desk...she seems the type. :) Reply to this
Leave a comment
Copyright . http://TODAYSLIES.COM. All rights reserved.
