home

Two More New York Papers Endorse Hillary Clinton

The New York Times recently endorsed Hillary Clinton. Newsday and the New York Daily News do the same. From Newsday:

Obama presents an inspiring vision of how the nation can heal its polarizing partisanship. Clinton brings proven experience and knowledge to accomplish that goal. Democrats engaged in this election have distilled this argument down to a simple but essential question: Do you choose with your heart or your head?

It's a difficult decision, but in the end, we choose experience. Clinton has been an outstanding senator for this state and this Island. She's intelligent, hard-working, tough, passionate and has an enthusiasm for the important nuances of complex policy. Newsday endorses Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. ...While both are strong candidates, Clinton is better prepared to deal with the challenges the next president will confront.

When Hillary ran for Senate in 2000, the paper says it was "skeptical" and endorsed her Republican opponent. Now, it says,

Clinton tirelessly and carefully listened to the people of New York State. No gathering or concern was too small. In the Senate, she has worked hard and created a centrist record and bipartisan solutions. We endorsed her heartily in her re-election bid in 2006. Those traits -- hard work, smarts, bipartisanship, pragmatism and bulldog determination -- are important for the next president.

On Obama,

Obama has the potential to rise to greatness. But two years in the Senate is not much seasoning. He has yet to show a sufficient grasp of the complexities of the job. She has the savvy and the strength to lead today. That's why she's our choice for Democrats in Tuesday's primary.

The New York Daily News shouts its endorsement of Hillary on its front page.

Where Clinton and Obama differ most is on the critical questions of how they would approach the presidency and who is readier for the Oval Office at a time when the nation and world face increasingly complex challenges. There Clinton is the stronger candidate, and The News endorses her in this Democratic matchup.

After eight years at the side of President Clinton and seven years representing New York in the U.S. Senate, she is clear-eyed both about the demands of the globe's toughest job and about using the power that comes with it. She would try to lead by doing.

Her celebrity status notwithstanding, Clinton is at heart a worker in the trenches. She has an encyclopedic knowledge of the issues, and her success in the Senate on behalf of New Yorkers attests to both relentless attention to detail and skill at working the levers of power.

Like Newsday and other newspapers have noted, Obama is inspirational. But, it's not enough.

The next President will need more than hope to grapple as well with powerful new global tides. A severe and worsening credit crisis, immigration trends, the East-West balance of power - all those and more are in flux with critical consequences for the American economy and way of life. And then there's the question of the planet's very sustainability.

With seven years in the Illinois Legislature under his belt, along with just three in the U.S. Senate, Obama has never met challenges remotely of that magnitude. While no one comes to the presidency with perfect experience, he has been less tested than Clinton. And his conception of providing the vision for an administration rather than serving as an operating officer gives pause.

The News -- as the other papers endorsing Hillary, note Obama has true promise.

After further Washington experience, notably in the national security realm, his time to become the Democratic standard-bearer may well arrive.

Clinton's time is here now.

< Obama's Senate Record on Nuclear Leaks | What to Expect From John McCain >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Well it is (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:32:33 AM EST
    after all her homes state, I would hope she would win the endorsements of local papers.

    Yes. And pretty solid (none / 0) (#6)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:38:57 AM EST
    and thoughtful endorsements from the people who watched her most and know her best, politically.  Should be reassuring to Independents and even some Republicans whose votes we'll need next fall.

    Parent
    You support Hillary (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:15:48 AM EST
    you think every endorsement for her is solid a well written.

    My local paper endorsed Obama.


    Parent

    Endorsements for Obama are usually pretty shallow (none / 0) (#25)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:39:12 PM EST
    Obama supporters were asked in another forum what, exactly, they could point to as the reason they supported him, aside from his perceived ability to inspire voters. The answer was, and I quote: "Obama's greatest strength is his confidence and intelligence. He's a gifted leader."

    And that's it. That's what you're basing your allegiance on - perceived character traits, not issues, not policies, not plans of action or demonstrated governing or deal-making abilities. All the endorsements say the same thing. It's all woo-woo hope and inspiration, not "I like his health care plan better," or "I support his economic policy" or "He's really on top of foreign policy issues." When new facts come in that show he's not all he claims to be, you play "What Obama Really Meant."

    I think he's OK maybe for a VP. But as a leader, to me he has proven over and over again that he is duplicitous, arrogant, naive and inexperienced. He's for Obama before he's for the Democrats, a uniter not a divider (where have we heard that before?); just trust and vote me in and then I'll show you how we're going to do this. I don't think he's shown that he understands policy issues or has good solid plans on how to tackle the fooking ENORMOUS problems anybody following Bush is going to have to deal with.

    Parent

    reminds me of (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    Bush saying he's something, then everyone else in the media repeating it so many times that soon, it's conventional wisdom.  Right up there with Mission Accomplished.  Only, when Obama does it, he's being a strong leader.

    Reminds me of John Stewart's riff on Bush's false arguments: "Some people want the terrorists to win.  Well, I'm not one of them.  I want to win this war and make America great again!"

    WHAT?  Who out there wants the terrorists to win?

    It's like saying, "Some people think child molesting should be legal.  Well, I don't, and I'll fight tooth and nail to keep it legal because it's the right thing to do!"

    Headlines the next day: "BUSH TAKES STRONG STANCE ON PROTECTING AMERICA'S BABIES!"

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#37)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:30:07 PM EST
    Those who support Hillary are wise and thoughtful.  Those who support Obama are shallow and petty.  Gotcha.

    If you really cared you could thoughtful support of Obama.

    Or you could stick with the "people vote for Obama for dumb reasons" meme.  

    Parent

    Don't make things up. (none / 0) (#34)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:53:17 PM EST
    I don't think I've ever said that before.  Got a link?

    Parent
    I think here biggest (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:54:29 AM EST
    and most telling endorsement came from this source.
    Takes the words right out of my mouth.

    Telling? Really? (none / 0) (#5)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:34:47 AM EST
    You actually think you know whether or not she means what she says or is saying it to undermine Clinton's candidacy and get attention for herself?

    I wouldn't take anything at face value from this (&%*$@#-I'm not allowed to swear here, am I?) celebrity.

    One thing she said is certainly true from my point of view:  "Hillary Clinton is more conservative than John McCain."  Conservative, meaning careful, cautious, unlikely to go off half-cocked.  In foreign policy especially, that works fine for me.  You?

    Parent

    Iraq (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:11:56 AM EST
    In foreign policy especially, that works fine for me.  You?

    This is a woman that helped get us in Iraq.  She stoop up to cheer that the surge has the terrorists on the run.  I don't trust her at all in foreign policy.  The only reason she is for withdraw now is because she knows she has to be for it to to win the primaries.

    I don't trust her to actually get us out of Iraq, she doesn't think the war was wrong, she thinks it was managed poorly. so Mrs Middle Management and chief is just going to try and manage it better.

    Parent

    English teacher below doesn't take (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:01:48 PM EST
    you to the cloakroom but I'm going to.  Listen up.

    People = 'who'
    Things = 'that'

    The man who...my aunt who...most people who, etc.
    The house that...the dog that...the forest that, etc.

    It is basic 6th-7th grade English and its misuse is driving everyone to distraction...which may, of course, be your aim now that you know.

    Nevertheless, let's all have an educational moment here and learn just this one thing which will make a huge difference to the ear of anyone listening to you for the rest of your days.  It is especially, important BTW, in job interviews or when being interviewed for college acceptance or prospective in laws.

    Practice.

    Parent

    why are obama people (none / 0) (#14)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:10:35 AM EST
    so tone deaf here?  At the time, seventy percent of the electorate supported giving bush authorization to use force.

    since then, about fifty percent have changed their minds and know they were wrong, just like hillary clinton.  

    shorter:  there is a vast number of voters who were wrong to trust bush on the war, just like hillary clinton.

    but she has proven that she is not afraid to fight if she has to.  

    obama can not win these voters.  he hasn't proven himself and those votes will go to mccain.  

    Parent

    A lot of us (none / 0) (#22)
    by BernieO on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:23:36 AM EST
    wanted to see the inspectors go into Iraq which would not have happened without the Senate OKing the resolution. If Bush had never put the resolution on the table, that would have been one thing, but once he did, defeating it would have been a big message to Saddam (and others in the region) that he could act with impunity. He certainly would never have let the inspectors in.

    I do wish Hillary had answered from the start when she was asked if her vote was a mistake that her mistake was to trust Bush. The fact that she did not do this in the debate, however, was probably smart because Wolf had deliberately tried to trap her with the use of the word naive. Can you imagine the headlines if she had agreed with that?

    Parent

    i passed over (none / 0) (#15)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:22:23 AM EST
    but have to call you on the "mrs. middle management" comment.  that is simply disgusting and i pray obama people realize that they are really making a mistake by tearing down clinton.  

    how can you honestly believe that managing the situation better right now is not a top priority?

    or that obama is more qualified to do it?  

    he's only been in the senate two years, and you want to hand him the biggest foreign policy disaster in the history of this country?

    Parent

    Thank you Captain Obvious. (none / 0) (#24)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST
     We know how she voted. Everybody knows how she voted.

    What we don't know is how Obama would have voted in the Senate - I'm guessing the same as Hillary. So he was against the Iraq war in 2002 - so were we all. That is not what the vote was about, although it was used that way.

    Obama was against it as an IL legislator, where it made no difference - and in his mind. Big deal. Hasn't stopped him from voting to fund it. He was right once, OK? He was against the war in 2002. WE GET THAT. He didn't then and hasn't since done anything to STOP the war.

    And BTW, Kerry voted for it too, as did Edwards. So apparently it's not a litmus test for a presidential candidate unless you weren't there to vote and you want to use it against Hillary.


    Parent

    we can guess (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:34:43 PM EST
    how Obama would have voted--the same way he "voted" on the Iranian resolution he is currently bashing Clinton over: even though he took other votes that day, he did not show up for the vote on the resolution.

    Yet another example where this inspirational leader chose to bow out of taking a hard position.  I suppose we chalk this up to another "present."

    Parent

    Not just Kerry & Edwards...also (none / 0) (#33)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:59:57 PM EST
    Biden and Daschle.

    Of course, now Kerry and Daschle are trying to regain their mojo thru Obama...Edwards and Biden, so far, minding their Ps and Qs and trying to decide what the best play is....hmmm....and what deal they can make.

    Bet those phone lines are buzzing...

    Parent

    hmm... (none / 0) (#4)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:10:52 AM EST
    ... why do you mention the NY Times endorsement for Clinton, and completely ignore the LA Times endorsement for Obama?

    L.A. Times is owned by the Chicago Tribune (none / 0) (#7)
    by felizarte on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:58:55 AM EST
    group of newspapers.  So this is not at all surprising.  And L.A. Times also owns La Union that recently endorsed Obama also.

    Parent
    Yes so by (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:04:48 AM EST
    that argument none of the New York papers have any weight since they are all local papers

    Parent
    No. but (none / 0) (#12)
    by felizarte on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:00:36 AM EST
    You've heard it before: "all things being equal . . ."

    Unless Sen. Clinton has been a rally terrible senator for New York, these New York Papers will of course endorse her. They know her there.

    In Chicago, they would also cheer their own "hometown boy," Many in Los Angeles feel that L.A. Times no longer has the loyalty of the community because it's recent emphasis on profit instead of editorial content.

     Just like the superbowl . . . I would think New Yorkers will be cheering for the Giants as opposed to the Patriots.  

    Parent

    NY TImes (none / 0) (#21)
    by Judith on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:06:08 AM EST
    is an international paper  - not local.

    Parent
    A lot of people don't realize this (none / 0) (#29)
    by BernieO on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:38:20 PM EST
    The LA Times is a lot more conservative since it was bought out.

    Parent
    geez jgarza, for about 1/32 of (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:51:01 AM EST
    a second, i thought you were talking about an actual human endorser, then i realized it was ann coulter, genetically malformed pod person. soon to be seen played by kevin mccarthy, in a theatre near you!

    This is a woman that helped get us in Iraq.

    her, and 299,999,990 of her fellow citizens, all of whom were lied to by bush and his evil minions. silly us, for actually being stupid enough to believe our very own president! except, of course, they didn't

    jgarza, could you please produce the actual congressional declaration of war on iraq?

    thanks so much for the info.

    New Zogby Polls this morning Obama ahead in CA (none / 0) (#13)
    by georgeg1011 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:03:12 AM EST
    and NJ, MO is a 1 point race.  GA is now 20pts in favor of Obama.  Can anyone spell Momentum?

    http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1444

    not making this up...with 2 days (really a day and a half-superbowl blackout no one will be campaigning), the race is shifting...

    polls (none / 0) (#16)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:53:36 AM EST
    Are we trusting polls now?

    The Zogby was taken from 31 Jan to 2 Feb.  There are other polls taken since the debate that point to the exact trend.  Weren't we all (well, some of us) cheering yesterday about one-day polls showing Hillary ahead?  

    I dunno, I think it helps Hillary that this is out there because a close race means you won't drive by the polls, see a long line, and keep going.

    Parent

    no, but the trend of the polls if you have been (none / 0) (#17)
    by georgeg1011 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:12:21 AM EST
    watching them this week is that the momentum is swinging Obama's way.  How does this help Hillary....that's almost silly.  How would the polls moving his way help her?  That's an almost Rovian argument, isn't it, like the surge is working?

    Parent
    the trend (none / 0) (#36)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:11:01 PM EST
    seems to be obama supporters breathlessly hoping their guy can stay in the race longer even if it serves no other purpose than slowing down the inevitable hillary democratic landslide in november.  

    the media wants a race to cover.  the people seem to be ready to send in the best person we've got to clean up after junior and the criminal republicans.  

    but obama likes the attention, so an excuse is being created to stay in after tuesday unless he gets just absolutely blown out LIKE HE DID IN FLORIDA.  

    i think his supporters are going to be in for quite a shock on tuesday when all this "momentum" turns out to have been mostly hot air.  

    Parent

    Zogby is a pollster (none / 0) (#18)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:29:10 AM EST
    that I have little faith in...He was on Jon Stewart expressing dislike for the Clintons I hear.So I usually discount Zogby and Rasmussen....

    And hopefully Zogby decreases complacency (none / 0) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:36:18 AM EST
    for the Clinton supporters.

    I think the election is too close to call until tomorrow.  Anyone who gets excited by a swing that is within the MOE is nuts.

    Parent

    Interesting phenomenon (none / 0) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:45:02 AM EST
    about Huffington Post.

    (Speaking of NY Times so this isn't totally OT)

    Last week Huffington post front paged, top headlined splashed the article about Borat-gate and Clinton.

    Today, NY Times published an article about Obama and one of his top donors, Exelon and the watered down nuclear regulation legislation he attempted to enact -- The legislation that he told his supporters in speeches had passed when it DIDN'T.

    Anything about that anywhere on Huffington, even a teensy headline?  No.

    Anyone who thinks the major blogosphere is any DIFFERENT than the MSM anymore is severely deluding themselves.  In fact, the MSM is LESS biased in reporting faults of candidates.

    And remember, we're talking about two DEMOCRATIC candidates, here, ones that aren't that severely different in policy.  This is a case where one would assume that a major "librul" blog would treat them with balance.  Nope!  They ordain candidates just like anyone else.

    Obama "Surging" (none / 0) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:24:54 AM EST
    Per Huffington Post.  Really? Hillary is 11% ahead of him nationally as of today?  The state polls are all over the place with a huge Undecided sector.

    And this proves Obama is "surging?"

    Me thinks our Blog Stream Media needs to take a powder.

    this is obvious a from a mile away (none / 0) (#26)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:58:15 PM EST
    they are building in a rationalization for him to stay in even if he's out of it by clinging to this "momentum" spin which basically isn't even true so far as i can tell.  

    but if he makes up a little ground, they will say he should stay in, even if he loses.  that's all this is about.  

    Parent

    Arianna Huffington hates the Clintons (none / 0) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    You can see the breathless rage in everything she says about Hillary (on Olbermann, etc).  To her, it's personal, and frankly I wonder if it's left over from her "Republican" days when the Clintons beat the Republicans.

    And now this "surging" statement, and absolutely NO MENTION of Obama's Exelon connections and subsequent lies about passing legislation?

    Like I've said, "Blogstream media".  Biased, corrupt.

    Parent

    I think someone (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:56:45 PM EST
    already pointed out that most of the vehement anti-Clinton folk used to be republicans.  They may have changed parties, but they certainly still get in the gutter like a lot of republicans have been known to do.

    And, is it just me, or do there seem to be a lot of folks on here lately who are trying to be inflammatory just for the heck of it?  Not that it's everyone, because I welcome folks with whom I can have a substantive discussion on position, etc, and there are several folks who have certainly added a lot to the discussions lately (and I am new here, so who am I to say?) but I think some of them got tired of preaching to the choir over at DK and Huff or wherever so they decided to come play here.

    Parent

    Unpacking Rupert Murdoch's endorsement (none / 0) (#32)
    by Bartman on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:57:11 PM EST
    Warner at Huffington Post has written an interesting speculative piece on the New York Post's endorsement of Barack Obama.

    Bartman
    http://comparingobama2jfk.blogspot.com