NY Times picks Hillary

Parent Cafe
1

<p>As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.</p>

<p>We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.</p>

<p>By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.</p>

<p>Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image. On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.</p>

<p>Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.</p>

<p>It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.</p>

<p>Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.</p>

<p>The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2

<p>Oh my, what a surprise – a New York newspaper endorsing a New York Senator for President. I am pretty sure the State of NY was already in Clinton’s pocket (or maybe it’s that she has her hand in NY’s pocket).</p>

3

<p>That was a very insightful and well-written editorial. A good look at the pluses and minuses of each, and then consideration of the big picture.</p>

4

<p>For a different point of view on the same question:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/01/18/endorsed_0120.html[/url]”>http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/01/18/endorsed_0120.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>For Democrats, Obama the pick</p>

<p>The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/20/08</p>

<p>According to a recent Gallup poll, almost three out of four Americans are dissatisfied with how things are going in our country, with just 24 percent believing we’re headed in the right direction. The deep discontent reflected in those numbers have made Democrats optimistic about their party’s chances of electing one of their own to the White House in November.</p>

<p>However, the situation represents more than a mere opportunity; it imposes an obligation on the Democratic Party to offer the country a candidate who can inspire the American people, a candidate capable of addressing the many critical challenges, foreign and domestic, that will confront our next president and commander in chief.
COMING NEXT WEEK
The AJC editorial board will publish its endorsement in the Georgia Republican primary next Sunday.</p>

<p>At times of crisis, this country has always been blessed with strong, even visionary, leadership. But that has not been true for the last seven years. To the contrary, on almost every front we are suffering the consequences of slapdash, divisive leadership.</p>

<p>Economically, the country appears to be sliding into a recession; internationally, our reputation on the world stage has perhaps never been lower. Militarily, our men and women in uniform have been burdened with responsibilities that they lack the manpower to carry out over the long term, and with the aging of the Baby Boom generation and a soaring national debt, our financial obligations likewise threaten to overwhelm the resources we have committed to meet them.</p>

<p>In Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama, the Democrats offer Georgia voters three candidates with the experience, leadership and character to begin to turn this country around. However, only two of those candidates now harbor realistic hopes for the nomination.</p>

<p>Edwards, a former senator from neighboring North Carolina, has used his campaign to voice the growing anxiety and fear of many in America’s working and middle classes. It’s an important message, as recent days have confirmed, and with economic troubles ahead, the issues that Edwards has highlighted could prove central in determining the outcome of the general election.</p>

<p>However, judging from the reaction of primary voters, Edwards’ impassioned, crusading style may be better suited to a House or Senate race than a race for the presidency. He remains a distant third in most polls, and his hopes for the nomination no longer seem realistic.</p>

<p>That leaves Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. On questions of policy, not much separates the two. Their approaches toward health care, tax policy, foreign relations and the suppression of Islamic terrorism vary only at the margins.</p>

<p>(In fact, that similarity probably accounts for the dismaying pettiness of the disputes between the Obama and Clinton camps in recent days. Campaigns have to argue, and with little of real import separating them, they are now arguing over the little things and in some cases the imaginary things.)</p>

<p>The question, then, is which of the two candidates would be more able to implement the policies they agree upon.</p>

<p>Throughout the campaign, Clinton has argued that she has the better grasp of official Washington, which is probably true. Through hard work and intelligence, she has built an admirable record of success as a senator that has impressed even some Republican colleagues.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the opposite is true as well — official Washington also has a better grasp on Clinton.</p>

<p>Perhaps burned by her experience in her husband’s administration, she has too often chosen to play within the Washington system rather than dare to challenge its assumptions. And that’s not the kind of leadership needed at the moment.</p>

<p>The prime example of that instinct was probably Clinton’s vote last year in favor of naming Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. While that stance kept her in good standing in certain Washington circles, it also fed what at the time was a rising push toward military confrontation with Iran that was unnecessary and dangerous. Even voters willing to set aside Clinton’s earlier vote giving President Bush authority to invade Iraq were taken aback when she seemed to have repeated that mistake.</p>

<p>For reasons largely outside her control, Clinton is also one of the more reviled figures in American politics. That sentiment is unfair and irrational, and she has done little to deserve it. But it exists nonetheless, and it would limit the amount of public support she would be able to rally as president.</p>

<p>Obama, on the other hand, has demonstrated an appeal across many of the lines that have divided America. That is a critically important attribute, because the scale of changes that must be made to correct America’s course cannot be accomplished with majorities of 50 percent plus one.</p>

<p>Different moments in history require different types of leaders, and part of the art of picking a president is matching the person to the challenge and to the time. So while both Clinton and Obama would make very good presidents, Obama is the person; this is his time.</p>

<p>— Jay Bookman and Cynthia Tucker for the editorial board</p>

5

<p>One issue on which Obama and Clinton differ is health care. Much as I support MA’s attempt to provide health care for all its residents, I can see that it would not be possible in most states to duplicate its program. And for MA residents, the cost keeps going up. As a result of constantly escalating costs (owing to underestimating the number of uninsured) I’ve come to support Obama’s more modest but also more realistic plan.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/01/24/cost_of_health_initiative_up_400m/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/01/24/cost_of_health_initiative_up_400m/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

6

<p>A week before this, they had an editorial about why Obama was the best candidate by Kristoff.</p>

7

<p>How does health care work in Mass?</p>

<p>Do people have a choice between private health care insurers and public health care insurance?</p>

<p>Any idea what a family of 4 pays a year and what they get for it?</p>

8

<p>asdfjkl1, both of those are the endorsement of the respective paper’s editorial board. It’s not just an opinion, it’s each paper’s endorsement for a particular candidate.</p>

9

<p>Eek, I need to learn how to read properly. But, that is really scary, man. I still will wear my Obama pin PROUDLY. Screw the times.</p>

10

<p>dstark:</p>

<p>People do have a choice, and MA has some of the highest ranked HMOs in the nation (#1 & #2 in USN&WR).
HMOs’ costs vary a bit. The choices I was given ranged from $307 to $469 for a family (no size limit). This includes prescription medicines. The costs depend partly on whether one uses doctors within the network or doctors of one’s own choosing. </p>

<p>The issue for the state was several: small businesses which resisted providing health insurance for their employees, self-employed and unemployed who did not have health insurance. All studies point out that when the uninsured get sick, they make use of emergency rooms, which is very costly and inefficient. So the state under (guess who? Romney, nacht) came up with a plan to ensure almost everybody. Those who did not enrol in a plan would actually get fined. Of course, lots of people cannot buy insurance because they do not have the financial means to do so, so the state subsidizes their health insurance. Unfortunately, the state seems to have underestimated the number of people qualifying for the health insurance subsidy. As for the small businesses, this has been a greater success. The state basically jawed both the businesses and the insurance companies until some acceptable compromise was reached. Romney did a great job there. Unfortunately, he’s decided to run against his major success as governor. MA is not a great place to be from if one wants to run as a conservative.</p>

11

<p>$307 to $469 a month. </p>

<p>That’s good.</p>

<p>Yeah. Romney is a strange duck.</p>

<p>Looked good in the debate tonight though.</p>

12

<p>Ten years ago, the same HMO charged $109 for a family plan, with co-pays of $5 instead of $15. MA can afford to have this kind of health coverage because the state’s population is small and the state is pretty affluent. Extending it to other states, including CA, TX and most of the southern states would not work.I don’t know where the funds for the Edwards and Clinton plan would come from.</p>

13

<p>“Extending it to other states, including CA, TX and most of the southern states would not work.”</p>

<p>Isn’t that precisely why Romney is “running away” from the Mass plan as a prescription for the nation? If so, give him credit for pragmatism and candor.</p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>marite: If I’m not mistaken, all 3 of the Democratic Candidates have said that the bulk of the money to fund their health care plans would come from ending Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy (those who make over $200K a year). Of the Democrats, only Obama’s isn’t universal, to my understanding. Obama’s plan would leave ~15 million people uninsured from what I’ve read.</p>

<p>In addition, all 3 Democrats also want to end the war in Iraq, where we currently spend ~$275 million a day?? Can that be right? None of the Republicans, to my knowledge (except Ron Paul) wants to end the war, and neither do they want to end the tax cuts for wealthy Americans (again, except Ron Paul?), so where the Republicans would get their money for health care is the real question. I’m guessing that’s out of taxpayer’s pockets.</p>

<p>I have very good health care, but how much less my plan gives me now from what it did in the past, in a very short period of time, is really astonishing. My deductable is so high now, that I’m basically paying for major medical, should I need it. Other than that, any doctor’s visits I make are coming out of my pocket, because my insurance sure isn’t covering it.</p>

<p>The NY Times doesn’t surprise me, though this endorsement seems a little early. And in the Republican debate last night, they talked only of Clinton. In their minds, too, she’s got the nomination. I really think we need to stop these early state primaries and the media making our decisions for us. By the time my state votes, the decision has pretty much been made.</p>

15

<p>Hillary would be divisive and Bill will be chasing young skirts in the White House. The NYT got it wrong.</p>

16

<p>janieblue: this op-ed piece suggests another reason why the Republicans were talking only of one Democrat: because she would be the easier to defeat by any of them:
[url=<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402797.html?sub=AR]washingtonpost.com[/url”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402797.html?sub=AR]washingtonpost.com[/url</a>]</p>

17

<p>actually reupubicans are more afraid of Hillary than Obama - fresh attacks</p>