[digg-me]In an article full of hedged opinions and criticisms of Senator Clinton and praise for Obama, the New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton because she was the safe choice. Their conclusion:
Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.
The also manage to deceive themselves into thinking that Senator Clinton can be as unifying as Senator Obama – and that she will win over her critics; they paint the differences between Clinton and Obama as marginal – because both Senators propose similar policies. But they ignore the difference in temperament and political approach that Obama would give – and the fact that his focus would be on improving the process rather than on achieving particular ends. Senator Clinton has shown time and time again that she is willing to use any means at her disposal in order to achieve whatever end she believes is necessary. Senator Obama has shown remarkable restraint – and his public record indicates a seriousness about the abuse of government power that Clinton lacks. ((Including especially his work in Illinois to have all capital case interrogations recorded, and his bill that created this site, and in general his focus on transparency in government.))
Especially at a time when the balance of power in Washington has been skewed in favor of the presidency, we need a president who will restrain himself or herself – as the Times acknowledges. The Times makes the perplexing statement that “Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues” as Obama while acknowledging that she doesn’t talk about them. The editors also fail to mention that the Bush administration built on many precedents set by the Clinton administration in their quest for further executive power – including one major early victory which was based on assertions of executive privilege by Hillary Clinton’s health care task force.
In the end, I think the New York Times fundamentally mis-interprets the state America is in – and the relative qualifications of Senators Clinton and Obama.
Here’s what I propose
Write a letter to the New York Times expressing your disapproval of their endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Make the next news story that they received more mail disagreeing with this decision than any other in their history. We can do it.
Email @ [email protected]
Fax @ (212) 556-3622
Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Or even better do all three.
Letters submitted for publication should be 150 words or less, must refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer’s address and phone numbers according to the Times Letters to the Editor page.
If you can, let me know you’re sending the letter by emailing [email protected] so I can post updates on how much of a response the Times is getting.
Spread the word! Post this information on your own blog!