Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 Obama Politics The Clintons

The New York Times Endorses Hillary Clinton

[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

Mail to:

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!

We can show the New York Times that we, at least, can see the Great Need of the Hour. And it’s not Hillary Clinton.

Related articles

5 replies on “The New York Times Endorses Hillary Clinton”

Under some remote possibility that you missed this story, I post a link and headline. (for your information)
Four-pronged approach will strengthen the economy by reforming taxes, cutting spending, improving monetary policy and eliminating burdensome regulations
http://thenewliberty.com/?p=472
Now, can you come close to answering this question, please? First some background; The President must take an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution. OK, ready?
Which presidential candidate has proven that he can, will and does support and defend the US constitution, including the declaration of independence? Good guess, I suppose that you are wrong you dufuses!

While innocent enough at first blush, this post exemplifies the viciousness and vitriol of this blog. You have asked your readers to make the New York Times pay — to make them hurt — simply for disagreeing with you. Registering disagreement is one thing, but you want to them to be embarrassed over this. So much for the starry-eyed idealism of Obama and his supporters.

Simon –

Vitriol? Viciousness? No where do I say we should “make the New York Times pay” for their endorsement – or hurt them. I think they were wrong – and I think many people agree.

And don’t slander us Obama supporters as “starry-eyed idealists”. We’re not. We’re pragmatists; we’re liberals; we’re moderates; we’re independents; we’re conservatives.

Tell me where is line where I say we need to make the Times pay?

Oh goodie, the rhetorical “I didn’t say it explicitly so I didn’t say it all” game. {sigh}

“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.”

Disapproval? Like I said, registering disagreement is one thing, but browbeating them for it is another. And yes, having to publish a story about an overwhelming negative reaction to their endorsement would be an embarrassment — both to the Times and the Clinton campaign. Assuming you are not an idiot (which you clearly are not), this couldn’t have passed you by. You are blinded by your ASSUMPTION that Obama is the obviously correct choice, and your incredulity towards those who disagree with you betray this.

As for vitriol, this blog is loaded with it. For example, you call the Clintons “fundamentally and irredeemably corrupt” (way to tow the Republican party line, there) on the post that first drew me into this website. And yet Clinton is the one who gets accused of attacking Obama with the force usually reserved for the opposition party…

“And don’t slander us Obama supporters as “starry-eyed idealists”. We’re not. We’re pragmatists; we’re liberals; we’re moderates; we’re independents; we’re conservatives.”

First of all, this is a print medium, so it would be libel — not slander. Second, most of the Obama supporters I have spoken with take “starry-eyed idealism” as a badge of honor. Congratulations on not being so foolish, and my apologies for the conflation (though I have yet to meet a single Obama supporter I would consider “conservative”). Third, I do believe that Obama’s campaign has been unduly idealistic. I have not caught the “Obama magic” — and that is his failing, not mine. It is his job to convince me (or, if he chooses to ignore me and focus on others, to accept that I then have no reason not to vote for someone else). And for what it’s worth, you blog with all its rhetoric does nothing to make me like Obama more. It is ugly window-dressing, attractive only to those who are already buying and repellent to everyone else.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: