South Carolina Paper Endorses Hillary for Dem. Nomination

Another Hillary Clinton endorsement, this time from the Sun News in Myrtle Beach, S.C. It sounds like the paper's views are normally Republican. And, while it's endorsing her for the Democratic nomination, it's not endorsing her for President.

There are some things about Clinton and the other Democratic candidates we don't like: their view that the best way to create universal health care is a big new government entitlement program; their belief that new federal spending of many kinds is the path to a more prosperous, happier America. As for soaking "the rich" with tax increases, that only dries up private investment, the true path to greater prosperity.

Nonetheless, as to Hillary, it says: [More...]

....an untested candidate of "change" is the wrong person to carry out the Democratic side of the argument. What's needed is a sharp, savvy, highly skilled politician with a demonstrated grasp of our governmental system: Sen. Hillary Clinton.

This is not a Clinton love letter, to be sure.

If the next president is to be a Democrat - and we are not conceding that it will be - then Clinton should be the person who occupies the Oval Office, especially if she relegates her husband, former President Bill Clinton, to ceremonial status. She certainly has the brains, toughness and skill-set required to chart her own course.

And on Hillary's qualifications, it's very clear:

Turn her loose on the leadership of the Chinese, the Russians, the Pakistanis, the Saudis, the Iraqis, the Palestinians or the Israelis. Do readers have any doubt that those leaders will come away with a clearer understanding of America's foreign interests and national-security goals and her determination to pursue them? We don't.

If terrorists strike again at American interests anywhere in the world, does anyone doubt she will retaliate immediately? We don't.

Put her in a room with the Republican senators who likely will retain the power to derail initiatives dear to the Democrats. Does anyone doubt her ability to negotiate a compromise that works for the American people? We don't.

I take this endorsement more as a sign that Hillary is indeed electable and that the number of people who won't vote for a Clinton come hell or high water is getting smaller day by day. It's also a sign that the Republicans will use the inexperience card against Obama if nominated -- and that it will be the most effective one they have.

< New York Times Endorses Hillary Clinton | The Myth Of The Democrats Being Torn Apart >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Off topic (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:10:30 AM EST
    Check this video out Romney being whispered to the answer to a question, rather fascinating, where is the voice from?  http://www.justin.tv/ronpaultv/62347/Strange_Whisper__Romney_Raise_Taxes

    I was just going to say (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by phat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:33:50 AM EST
    Get that to the Paulbots.

    But it is a Paulbot.

    That clip is weird.



    Too strange. (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:19:57 AM EST
    ruh roh (none / 0) (#9)
    by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:05:01 AM EST
    At the risk of a certain poster here (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Nowonmai on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:39:27 AM EST
    calling me a 'waffler' or flip flopper (you know who you are, as does everyone else), I had been following the candidates speeches, and reading up on what their political platforms are, what changes they wanted to bring about, etc etc, I have had my mind changed as to which candidate would better serve the office.

    For a while there I felt Obama was a good choice, as he seemed to be forward thinking, and seemed (operative term) to know what he was doing and where he was going.

    John Edwards, I like him, I still do. He is proof of the "American Dream" that if you work your a$$ off, you can get become financially secure, and wealthy. Do I think he can get enough endorsement to be Presidential candidate? No.

    Hillary, I also like, as she sees what is going on around here, and wants changes, and will fight for them. She hasn't wavered from this.

    Unfortunately, Obama has. There are videos of him saying one thing to one group, and saying something diametrically opposed to another group. That sets alarm bells off.

    As things stand now, I also see Hillary Clinton as the best choice for Democratic presidential candidate.

    This is only a little better than (none / 0) (#1)
    by magster on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:54:22 PM EST
    the "endorsement" that Obama got in Nevada.

    Right wing newspapers should just stay quiet when it comes to Democratic business.

    This endorsement is the most telling (none / 0) (#2)
    by lily15 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:57:19 PM EST
    I agree with you.  This is the south..and a the tone of the endorsement verges on apostasy for a Republican.  They actually believe she will be better in foreign policy...stronger...and at least can work with Republicans.  They even seem to be saying they like her better than her husband...trust her more.  It is very powerful...because it speaks to independents and totally exposes the anti Hillary unelectable narrative as a creation of the right wing noise machine...a narrative that some liberals have bought into with little evidence....and most importantly...from their point of view...a false narrative.  Funny...this endorsement, coming from a non liberal paper says more than many others...plus on the heals of the NYTImes....is there unity here?

    heels of the NYT (none / 0) (#3)
    by lily15 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:00:27 AM EST
    Is it too early to feel a little optimistic?  Will people recognize that the media along with the Rethugs are fanning the flames of division within the Democratic party?

    It was actually ahead of the NYT endorsement (none / 0) (#6)
    by felizarte on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:17:50 AM EST
    because I saw it in Hillary Hub before the NYT endorsement was posted.

    I have a feeling that (none / 0) (#4)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:00:28 AM EST
    Hillary will inspire unity as well as loyalty, as I hear many of her staff have all been with her for years and years....speaks well for her personality....She is also a lot brighter than Bill is and I think a lot tougher....

    when clinton was elected for the first time, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by hellothere on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:19:02 AM EST
    i wasn't so sure i liked him. i fancied i leaned republican, but i can see now that wasn't true. over time i came to feel that he truly cared about the welfare of average americans. when the repubs began their attack on him especially second term, i swung totally behind him. i have not supported hillary but did edwards up to this point. the more attacks the more it irritates me. i'll vote for her.

    interesting (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:11:44 AM EST
    a couple of observations:

    1. they (sun news) are pushing the canard of big government entitlement program, as the means of achieving universal health care in the US. the implication is that it will be paid for solely by those horribly put upon wealthy people, no doubt to the detriment of their own health care.

    demonstrably false on its face: it would be paid for by channeling the health insurance premiums into a single-payer program, administered solely by the gov't. no multitude of duplicative programs to confuse everyone, nor multiple administrative programs to sap funds from actual health care. income taxes would be increased, to channel these funds, and everyone would receive a health insurance card.

    2. if it must be a democrat (and it's looking like that) sen. clinton has what the country needs, to at least start cleaning up the mess left by the bush administration, and his republican ennablers in congress.

    I think you are (none / 0) (#17)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:50:37 AM EST
    ahead of yourself;  You hope
    it would be paid for by channeling the health insurance premiums into a single-payer program, administered solely by the gov't. no multitude of duplicative programs to confuse everyone, nor multiple administrative programs to sap funds from actual health care. income taxes would be increased, to channel these funds, and everyone would receive a health insurance card.

    It has yet to be demonstrated.  I will admit however, you seem to have more faith in gov't to achieve that than I do.


    wrong again bunky! (none / 0) (#20)
    by cpinva on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:37:37 PM EST
    it has been demonstrated in most of the industrialized nations around the world: the UK, France and Germany come quickly to mind. not only does it work, according to the WHO, it works better in those countries with a gov't administrated, single-payer program, than it does in the US.

    i do have faith in the fed. gov't to administer the program, since they won't have a profit motive in doing so. the key, as always, is in getting competent people to do the job.

    i could go on, but along with the premiums-now-taxes, it should all but eliminate the necessity for having "not-for-profit" hospitals, since everyone showing up at their front door will have a gov't issued health insurance card. having audited a few, i can pretty much assure you they make a quite tidy profit, they can now start paying taxes on it.


    I would not bring up (none / 0) (#23)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:35:05 AM EST
    the UK, don't they have guys there pulling teeth with pliers?

    Republican don't change their stripes (none / 0) (#13)
    by koshembos on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:15:10 AM EST
    Inexperience will be the second argument the Republican will raise against Obama; the first and foremost will be race.

    Although, I rank Obama as the worst Democratic candidate running, experience is, in my opinion, a false argument. JFK and Bill Clinton had no experience and did quite well.

    Then there'll be 3 issues (none / 0) (#15)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:38:37 AM EST
    because Obama's flip-flopping on Reagan will be one of them

    ding777 (none / 0) (#18)
    by Kathy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:02:49 AM EST
    You are forgetting Rezko.  Speaking of, there was a pic of him and the Clintons on the news today.  Wait a minute--I've got a pic of me and Bill at a fundraiser.  Omigod!  Am I going to be indicted with Rezko?!

    Also, Bill Clinton was the most senior governor in the country when he ran for the White House.  I would not call that inexperienced.  JFK, likewise, had a long political record.


    JFK and Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#19)
    by miriam on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:48:52 AM EST
    had no experience?  Clinton was a state governor before he ran for president, and Senator JFK had plenty of "dinner table" experience coming from a highly-involved political family. But there's another  difference between those two and Barak Obama and to me it's a significant one.  Bill Clinton and John Kennedy clearly have (had) an active and  probing curiosity about almost any and all subjects put before them.  I don't recognize this quality in Obama.  There is a certain arrogance about him that clearly says "I already know it all."  I never, ever saw that in Kennedy and Bill Clinton; they appear(ed) to be constantly on the look for something new to learn and they revelled in it.

    Soaking the Rich (none / 0) (#14)
    by bob h on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:43:11 AM EST
    As for soaking "the rich" with tax increases, ..

    Ms. Clinton is hardly talking about doing this.  At the worst, the top bracket might go up a couple of percentage points, and the hedge fund managers might have to pay the same rates as ordinary mortals.

    Don't (none / 0) (#16)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:48:17 AM EST
    tell that to Edwards, he won't be able to study up on poverty anymore.

    are you suggesting (none / 0) (#21)
    by cpinva on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:42:21 PM EST
    the hedge fund manager's taxes will be paid directly to poor people? of course you weren't, i know that.

    in fact, what you were really suggesting is that you know diddly, and just felt a strange, uncontrollable compulsion to make a totally vaccuous statement.


    GOP paper's endorsement (none / 0) (#22)
    by diogenes on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:19:45 PM EST
    The cynics here suspend their disbelief--I'd expect someone to say that a "Republican" paper is endorsing Hillary because it is SCARED of Obama and would rather have Republican presidential and congressional candidates run against Hillary.