Biggest Paper In South Carolina Endorses Obama
Ending the suspense around a question that preoccupied lots of people in Dem circles today, The State, the largest paper in South Carolina, gives the nod to Obama:
The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault -- but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration -- and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity -- transcending party -- is a core value in itself...
Sen. Obama would also have the best chance to repair the damage to America’s global reputation. A leader with his biography -- including his roots in Africa and his years spent growing up overseas -- could transform the world’s view of America. He would seize that opportunity...
Sen. Obama is the only Democrat who plausibly can say that he wants to work with Americans across the political spectrum to address such subjects-- and that he has the integrity and the skills of persuasion that make him the best-qualified among the remaining Democratic hopefuls to address these challenges.
He would be a groundbreaking nominee. More to the point, he makes a solid case that he is ready to lead the whole country. We see Sen. Barack Obama as the best choice in Saturday’s Democratic primary.
Comments (64)
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 22, 2008 3:10 PM:I could hardly hope to improve on the above. Well said, that.
Meanwhile, here is a happy thought to dilute all of the acrimony that has been poisoning the air here of late - this Monday will be the last State of the Union address that George Bush will ever give. Doesn't that just fill you with a sense of profound relief?
OW wrote on January 22, 2008 3:11 PM:I caught most of tonight’s schizophrenic Mortal Kombat/Kumbaya debate. I know you’ll be shocked, but I came away irritated with the Clinton campaign – more precisely, with certain tactics that I dare call Bush-esque. Hear me out.
To back up, and to echo Josh Marshall, HRC had actually been growing on me lately. The new wave of sympathy hit me one day as I listened to her talk confidently – and with such clear mastery – of some random policy point. I thought, “God, wouldn’t it be nice to have someone that smart and that wonky in the White House.” Her policy mastery didn’t so much win me to her side, as it cooled my opposition. It made me step back, get some perspective, and realize that an HRC administration would be a welcome relief – and would actually be cool in some wonkerrific respects.
But then I listened to the debate. And, ugh. What bothered me was not any of the silly things you usually hear about her personally. What bothered me was her tactics – and in particular, her misrepresentations. They were a particular type of misrepresentation that rang disturbingly familiar.
Josh Marshall got me thinking about all this when I read his scattered reactions to the debate:
I still think Hillary is just intentionally misrepresenting what Obama said about Reagan. It makes me cringe. As much I like her, it makes me cringe. …
Just when I'm seeing Hillary's side of things, she comes back with crap like this 'present' stuff. Anybody who's looked into this knows the whole 'present' thing is garbage. It's a standard thing in the Illinois legislature.
Both of these attacks – i.e., Reagan and the “present” voting – are clearly factually false. And everyone who pays attention to the news knows it. And Clinton knows it too. Obama’s invocation of Reagan had nothing to do with praising Republican ideas, and the “present” thing has already been debunked too.
But still, she and her campaign keep harping on this -- dishonestly. What’s so infuriating is that, in doing so, they assume their audience is too ignorant to learn the truth. It’s not so much that they’re attacking Obama – after all, that’s politics. It’s that Clinton’s attacks illustrate a deep contempt for voters. Call it “the rube strategy” – we’ll say what we want and most people will be too ignorant to ever figure out the difference.
Greg wrote on January 22, 2008 3:11 PM:Yes.
This has been another edition of...
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 22, 2008 3:12 PM:Incidentally, I can see why this was not regarded as news sufficiently big to warrant a mention on TPM, but Sen Jean Carnahan also endorsed Barack Obama yesterday. One more in a long line of red-state democrats who do not wish to see the down-ticket democratic races end in a blood-bath of Republican victories.
Irishamerican wrote on January 22, 2008 3:12 PM:Bravo!
This endorsement is RIGHT ON!
If America wants to actually move FORWARD, then we cannot allow the Clintons back into the White House.
I hope to see this from the LA Times too, but I highly doubt it. With the Democratic Clinton Machine in California, I doubt the LA Times will go against the Mayor by Endorsing Obama.
This is a welcome endorsement from The State.
Great endorsement, not in terms of the paper itself, but the quality of the editorial. It really encapsulates what his candidacy represents.
And the first paragraph, pretty much sums of the Clintons' argument: they are prepared to do battle on the battlefield of the 1990s. Obama is proposing to rewrite the battlefield all together.
nefort wrote on January 22, 2008 3:15 PM:oryrtwugh cool site!!! [url=http://nefort1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://nefort2.com tyrwu4562
Matthew wrote on January 22, 2008 3:17 PM:So.
goldberry wrote on January 22, 2008 3:18 PM:Who are they kidding?! No matter who gets the Democratic nomination, the GOP is going to harrass them. Before long, we'll find out that Obama has an eye for white women and Michelle had Mumia Abu-Jamal's baby. None of it will be true but that won't stop them. It's a piss poor reason to vote for someone. "Vote for A because the nasty GOP has already trashed B." It seems like a perfect invitation to take on A.
Oh, and I don't want to elect a kumbaya president. I want to elect a Democrat.
I'm funny that way.
Boy, the bunker mentality of some Clintonistas (like goldberry) is pretty ridiculous.
LynnDee wrote on January 22, 2008 3:21 PM:What OW said. Good analysis.
Bupalos wrote on January 22, 2008 3:21 PM:In the general, Obama is playing to win. The Clintons are playing not to lose. Unfortunately, I think so many democrats are scared of the Invincible Republican Slime Machine that we may nominate damaged goods that can slog through, rather than the game changer.
Some one convince me why McCain is so bad.
Dave C wrote on January 22, 2008 3:28 PM:Bupalos, uh, off the top of my head: He's on the record about wanting to appeal Roe vs. Wade.
Frankly--and as a committed Obama-supporter--I am sick and tired of seeing fellow Obama supporters threatening to vote Republican if Clinton gets the nomination. She may not be our first choice, but she's still a democrat, folks! Any democratic should be able to find a whole slew of reasons why she would be a better President than any of the republicans!
grover_rover wrote on January 22, 2008 3:28 PM:I agree, very nice endorsement. Those who see Obama's non-divisive rhetoric as a weakness or some indication that he isn't really liberal or whatever you read this carefully, because it is addressed to them. I don't understand why that is so hard for some people to understand. I'm as partisan as they come, I hate Republicans, but I'm in no way turned off by his inclusive tone, because I know it is a brilliant political strategy, and what is best not only for America, but for our party as well. I just wish more people could understand (or admit, if they DO understand but want to tear him apart to help their candidate get ahead anyway) how Obama is exactly what we need, and how he would be much much more effective than Hillary (or Edwards even) in getting progressive goals accomplished.
DRinOH wrote on January 22, 2008 3:28 PM:Bupalos,
I've been thinking the same thing. The obvious rationale is that he isn't, but I care about the Supreme Court, the Cabinet, and administrative agency heads (think responsible EPA).
Still, while all of that would be better under Clinton, a vote for her represents an endorsement of her brand of politics and I'm starting to wonder if that's something I can stomach. I'm a liberal and I want to see a liberal in the White House, but I also want to see a return to civility. If Obama doesn't get the nomination, that means I have a tough choice.
james wrote on January 22, 2008 3:29 PM:Can I just point out that if Clinton wins SC (which I doubt she will) that will be three early states in a row (NH, NV, and SC) where the major paper endorsed the losing candidate? I think we're beginning to see the end of the influence of the print media if that does happen.
Johnny2Bad wrote on January 22, 2008 3:29 PM:"The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare."
And a black guy wouldn't???
Paleeaze.
Snark-a-licious wrote on January 22, 2008 3:30 PM:I can see how the one-man robo calling on HRC in South Carolina, where she's all but conceded the race is a more relevant story than this one. Definitely.
one wrote on January 22, 2008 3:30 PM:Well!
Have noticed the number of comments have slowed down lately.
Say Bye WJC!
goldberry wrote on January 22, 2008 3:31 PM:To Anonymous: It is a given that no matter who we nominate, that person would be trashed. We could nominate Jesus and they'd get him for his "alternative lifestyle". "Why is he travelling around with 12 guys?"
There is nothing that is going to change that. And Obama showed last night that he is shaky. He's got to be much quicker and nimble and less sensitive if he wants to win this.
So, this given is the great leveller. All of these candidates will be subjected to the same nasty treatment. Now, I can look at the policies and values of the candidates and Hillary wins that battle easily.
She's no Neville Chamberlain. She knows her enemy.
Bupalos...
"Someone convince me why McCain is so bad."
Exactly.
...exactly the reason why independents and turned-off Democrats will look in his direction come November if Hillary is the nominee.
That is not to say he isn't bad for progressive causes/needs. But folks don't know it...and unless the Dems put someone up there (Obama) who can play in the open field for those independent voters, it's a loss. And a year from now, we all be looking at the Dem primaries as the point at which "Dems managed to lose an election they had in the bag."
Pepp wrote on January 22, 2008 3:32 PM:More to the point, he makes a solid case that he is ready to lead the whole country.....
I dont think so......blah blah
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/biggest_paper_in_south_carolina_endorses_obama.php
Beautifully put.
Keith wrote on January 22, 2008 3:36 PM:James:
Um, don't forget the Des Moines Register endorsed Clinton. So it would be 4 for 4.
Pepp:
Just because you don't agree with the editorial, doesn't mean that the editorial isn't making the case that Obama is ready to lead the country.
rssrai wrote on January 22, 2008 3:37 PM:The biggest repug paper in SC goes for Obama the repug light. Yep, that is what real democrats want, repugs to pick our nominee, NOT.
Tapper wrote on January 22, 2008 3:38 PM:Of course the SC State endorses Obamarama, Dohhhh!
They are a Republican paper in a red state backing McCain for President.
Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! They want Dems to nominate our weakest candidate.
Sheesh, are the Obaidiots so pathetic that they consider this ensorsement as signifying?
Well hold on, I bet Bushit comes out for Obama real soon...
That's a terrific endorsement, and I agree with every word of it. If you're tired of the WWI-style trench warfare of the Clinton/Bush era, Obama should be your candidate. Between this endorsement and the new poll (see PoliticalWire) showing Obama up by 44-28, I'm not quite as miserably pessimistic right now as I've been for most of the last two weeks.
As for the point that "any Democrat will get smeared and slimed"... it's true in part, but it's also misleadingly simplistic. Yes, the dirty partisans on the right certainly will try to make any Dem as hated as the Clintons are. I'm just not at all convinced they'll succeed. It takes time and repetition for the worst smears to set in, for voters to reach that reflexive level of disgust.
And it also doesn't help when at least some of the attacks--the dishonesty and want of principle, say--are demonstrably true. Most people don't believe that the Clintons killed Vince Foster--but they do have serious doubts about their honesty and integrity. Where is the parallel grain of truth about Obama? (He's not, in fact, a Muslim.)
Dave C...
It's not really the Dems threatening to vote Republican you need to worry about in a McCain/Hillary general election. Hard core Dems, with exception here and there, will vote for the party. Same for Republicans. The key here is those (overvalued? patronized?) independent voters. I don't believe Hillary can get them. McCain can. There goes your election...your supreme court...etc.
With McCain, we would have an end to entitled politicos, maybe an end to influence peddling...and this will bring folks to his candidacy, particularly progressives who recognize his humanitarian approach to immigration and, really, his disinterest in cultural battles...including gay rights and choice.
Cynic wrote on January 22, 2008 3:39 PM:Greg,
Probably because Jean Carnahan isn't a superdelegate because she lost her senate seat. Today's more meaningful red state endorsement came from Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi. Just one more on Obama's side of the ledger.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 22, 2008 3:39 PM:'But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans.'
Good Luck With That, in the general Obama!
"Someone convince me why McCain is so bad."
McCain:
Clinton:
And because it NEVER gets old, Obama:
Any more questions, ye concerned Obama supporters?
willyjsimmons wrote on January 22, 2008 3:42 PM:'With McCain, we would have an end to entitled politicos, maybe an end to influence peddling...and this will bring folks to his candidacy, particularly progressives who recognize his humanitarian approach to immigration and, really, his disinterest in cultural battles...including gay rights and choice.'
You're a democrat?
'his disinterest in cultural battles...including gay rights and choice.'
Re-quoted for it's ridiculousness.
Hey willy. How's the gravel campaign going. It must not be going too well because I haven't seen one post from you supporting him. Is he going to make clinton his vp?
pkoso wrote on January 22, 2008 3:43 PM:rssrai...
what about obama's voting record and policy interests don't you understand? or, i'm sorry, have you even bothered to look?
he's consistenly voted in line with AND left of hillary. and last time i looked, he didn't vote for the amendment to ban flag burning (a rather republican ideal, can't we agree) wherein hillary did.
put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I could not agree more. Hillary may well be the most professionally qualified candidate for the office but she also has undeniably more political and personal baggage than anyone else.
She may not deserve that political baggage, but it is hers to carry nonetheless. The only way to get rid of it would be to dump Bill, which of course would give her no real record to run on.
The Clinton's tag team campaign has made it clear that electing her should be viewed as nothing short of a re-establishment of the first Clinton presidency. The only way anyone can reasonably call a return to the idiotic partisan clashes between Clinton and Anti-Clinton forces progress would be by comparing it to the unmitigated disaster of the Dubya presidency.
This country desperately needs to move forward politically. I don't see that happening until we tell anyone named Bush or Clinton "Thanks, but no thanks."
Dear Cynic,
Just to be clear, I was not asking why Sen Carnahan's endorsement was not mentioned. As I said above, it is hardly as newsworthy as the many other things to cover. I just wanted to point it out. Meanwhile, I am obliged to you for pointing out yet one more red-state democrat who sees the advantages of having Barack Obama at the top of our ticket.
pkoso wrote on January 22, 2008 3:48 PM:willy...
mccain has a professed disinterest in wedge issues; it's on record. i'm not saying i agree with him when he finally comes down with a position...i'm saying his disinterest in making his candidacy about choice, gay marriage, etc. will keep said issues out of the spotlight. thus making it easier for him to tap disenfranchised democrats and independent voters.
grover_rover wrote on January 22, 2008 3:52 PM:Tapper, you are basing your assertion that Obama is our weakest candidate in the general election based on...what exactly...? Because all of the polls, and indeed common sense show that he (and Edwards in many polls) is our strongest by far, and Hillary is a giant liability. If we go up against McCain in the general with Hillary, we are as good as dead, in the presidential and in Congress. If we come with Obama, someone who can fight McCain for the Independents and moderate Republicans, instead of someone who will drive everyone including parts of her own party away, we stand the best chance of winning. I'm sick of you Hillbots coming on here and making outlandish claims that fly DIRECTLY in the face of all of the polls, all of the anecdotal evidence, and all common sense. QUIT LYING OR QUIT BEING IGNORANT, WHICHEVER YOUR PROBLEM IS, STOP!
Christ, is the Clintons' lying contagious? I'm sick of this shit.
Mr. Purple wrote on January 22, 2008 3:53 PM:Talk about a Purple candidate... this endorsement pretty much says it all. I'm sick of the partisan politics that have plagued us for the past couple of decades, probably more, and I hope, if elected, Obama could rise above. In addition, I'm deeply concerned about our standing in the world and given Obama's heritage, sending him around the world as President of the U.S. would, I believe, do more to repair that image than anything else. There are other Purple candidates in this election but I'm beginning to see the light that Obama's shade of Purple is very close to mine.
Mr. Purple
KC wrote on January 22, 2008 3:55 PM:To anyone who cannot vote for Clinton in the general (should she--ugh--get the nomination) and who will not vote for the Republican nominee (which includes me)...write in Obama. It will send a message in the general to whomever wins that a great many people in this country want an end to "politics as usual."
But maybe it won't be necessary. Maybe Obama can get his message out. Hope.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 3:56 PM:Yawn
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 22, 2008 4:01 PM:Frankly--and as a committed Obama-supporter--I am sick and tired of seeing fellow Obama supporters threatening to vote Republican if Clinton gets the nomination. She may not be our first choice, but she's still a democrat, folks! Any democratic should be able to find a whole slew of reasons why she would be a better President than any of the republicans!
I'm not an Obama supporter -- I'm an ABC. HRC should be a good democrat and do what is good for the party. If she really had class and grace, she could run a different style campaign. Where was the Clinton machine when she thought she would stroll in Iowa and sew it up there? It was only *after* the trouncing in Iowa that we saw this behavior.
Well, let's talk the character issue. Let's talk the leadership issue.
Leadership is not trying to outshout an opponent in a formal, civil debate. Leadership is using the calm force of the righteousness of your position to carry the day. Leadership is acting as a leader, at all times.
For a front-runner, HRC is rather thin skinned. I don't care if she wants to do battle with the GOP. It's her battle, not mine.
And I say all of this having voted for Clinton twice. 8 years was good enough for George Washington, it should be good enough for a Bill/Hillary Clinton.
She can continue to do her battles in the US Senate. I wouldn't mind that job one bit -- and I did about as much to earn it. Except be married to Bill Clinton and move to NY.
HRC supporters will see this as "blind Hillary hate", but it's really just rational.
On the plus side, it's great that I haven't heard anyone say they wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is a woman, they wouldn't vote for her because she is a Clinton. So, this election has *already* shown the country has not problem with gender.
PeterB wrote on January 22, 2008 4:09 PM:KC - I am completely on board. I can't possibly vote for a repugnant, just as I refuse to vote for Billary in 08. I have clinton fatigue and I was a huge Bill supporter in the 90's. However, I have learned over the years that while Bill gave life to the democratic party with regards to capturing the executive position. He also killed the democratic party and compromised its principles. Now, we have the opportunity to take this party in a new hopeful direction, one that rejects the old boomer generation arguments that have stalled the political process for so many years.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 22, 2008 4:11 PM:'It must not be going too well because I haven't seen one post from you supporting him.'
Gravel is not the topic of this post, is he?
No?
Okay then.
'mccain has a professed disinterest in wedge issues; it's on record.'
And do you know WHY that is?
Probably not, but I'll try to explain.
McCain is 'disinterested' in 'wedge' issues because he knows his party has no problem throwing him under the bus when he gets off party message.
That's why.
By extension, are you suggesting that the Dem nominee purposefully avoids the issues of gay rights and choice...
Strange business indeed?
Progressives!!!! LOL
willyjsimmons wrote on January 22, 2008 4:13 PM:'Now, we have the opportunity to take this party in a new hopeful direction, one that rejects the old boomer generation arguments that have stalled the political process for so many years.'
*sigh*
Exactly when was Obama born again???
ChrisO wrote on January 22, 2008 4:16 PM:I think the whole issue of the Republicans being "energized" to make some superhuman effort to defeat Hillary is way overblown. Do you really think Dems are the only ones who don't want to refight the battles of the 90s? Bill Clinton had very high positives when he left office, meaning a lot of independents liked him. Why do you all assume that everyone who's not a committed Dem hates the Clintons with a passion? The ones who hate them that much would never vote Dem in a million years.
But by all means, let's send a "message." That worked so well for Nader.
I support Hillary, but I like Obama a lot (yes, you hate spewing Obama supporters, it's possible to campaign against someone without hating them. This isn't the high school student council race.) I realize Obama supporters have mastered the art of making excuses for everything their candidate does, but I think the effort to brand Hillary as a racist in order to weaken her support among blacks is just as despicable as anything you accuse the Clintons of.
Lizmom23 wrote on January 22, 2008 4:20 PM:What a teriffic endorsement. That about summarizes my feelings and support for Obama as well.
pkoso wrote on January 22, 2008 4:24 PM:willy...you basically vindicate my claim.
"McCain is 'disinterested' in 'wedge' issues because he knows his party has no problem throwing him under the bus when he gets off party message."
now why oh why would his party do that? oh...that's right, because he's not in lock step.
meaning: he'll be palatable to, yup, you guessed it, "disenfranchised dems and independents."
as far as your extension is concerned...there isn't one. lest i point you in the direction of obama's speech on sunday (i think it was sunday) re: the rights of all minorities, including gays.
anyway, thanks for playing.
peter wrote on January 22, 2008 4:31 PM:I agree. Very nice endorsement, and a great argument. Except for the fact that they use the first 6 lines to talk about Hillary.
If the argument for Obama is stronger than an argument against Hillary, why waste time talking about her? Why waste the most valuable real estate in the article on her name.
It's kind of like those satirical bumper stickers, "F, the president." While funny and clever, they do nothing more than reinforce the dominant frame.
tek wrote on January 22, 2008 4:54 PM:He's using his great rhetorical skills to demonize the other Democrats. He's not ready to lead the whole country, he's only ready to lead Independents, fundies, illegals, and the people who vote for him.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 4:54 PM:CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!
"I agree. Very nice endorsement, and a great argument. Except for the fact that they use the first 6 lines to talk about Hillary.............
It's kind of like those satirical bumper stickers, "F, the president." While funny and clever, they do nothing more than reinforce the dominant frame."
Who is the "they" you reference?
Greg Sargent or the newspaper?
Nice Try!!!!!
Whose "dominant frame" is being reinforced?
READ IS ALL!!!!!
Chris O
"but I think the effort to brand Hillary as a racist in order to weaken her support among blacks is just as despicable as anything you accuse the Clintons of."
Typical Clinton tactics. Obama never made an issue out of it, the Clintons did! Keep voting for Hillary, you sound like you have the same values and ethics as they do.
NCSteve wrote on January 22, 2008 4:58 PM:Alright people, listen up. I am a true-blue, Obama-Kool Aid drinker. I have seen the light and I am confident of his victory, as are we all.
But if, by some mischance, he loses and Hillary wins wins the nomination, I, as a lawyer and a Democrat, am begging you to march your ass down to the polling place, put a clothespin on your nose, close your eyes, vote for her and then just spend the next four to eight years drinking mauraritas with crushed Vicodin on the rim if that's what it takes.
The next administration will last four to eight years, tops. The Supreme Court, federal court of appeals and district court judges the next president picks will be on the bench until they die or decide to quit. The Republicans built up a huge backlog of judicial vacancies in the 90s by blocking Bill's nominees. Bush got to fill all of those, as well as all the seats that opened up during his own presidency. In effect, they got 14 years worth of judicial picks. Worse, actually, because they got to fill all of those seats in a much shorter, and later, period of time, which will drastically effect the rate at which they age out of the system.
Eight more years of Republican judicial picks does not bear thinking about.
On SCOTUS, Justice Stevens is 87. Justices Ginsberg is 75. Scalia and Kennedy are 72. Breyer is 70 in August. Replace four or, god forbid, all five of those with hard right pro-authoritarian forty somethings like Alito and Roberts and the country is screwed.
I repeat, if she wins the nomination, do not stay home, do not vote third party and do not vote for a Republican, even a slightly less horrible one like McCain. The federal judiciary has more inherent capacity to fuck this country up than all the half-witted twits we could ever put into the White House combined. Indeed, it was the Supreme Court that put the current half-witted twit into the White House in the first place.
The pain of a Hillary presidency will pass in four to eight years. The pain of McCain, Romney or, God forbid, Huckabee judicial picks will go on for decades.
willyjsimmonsl wrote on January 22, 2008 5:04 PM:'now why oh why would his party do that? oh...that's right, because he's not in lock step.'
LOL
The Straight Talk Express™ strikes again!
If the basis of Obama's support among these mythical and magical moderates has anything to do with the Iraq war, how could they possibly vote for McCain?
Hillary Hatred trumps ending the Iraq War?
McCain has no convictions of his own, which is why he allows himself to be thrown under the bus by his own party.
That you fail to realize McCain is all talk, makes me question your analysis.
That 'progressives' think McCain is somehow an alternative to a democrat is sad.
The first paragraph of this endorsement says it all for Democrats and the difficulties they face in choosing Obama or Clinton.
"The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault -- but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication."
Obama ought to use this opportunity to get back on message now that his surrogates and supporters are levelling the legitimate questions and counter punches.
hoppinjon wrote on January 22, 2008 5:36 PM:A Republican newspaper endorses the Democrat running the most conservative campaign. Quelle surprise!
sampson wrote on January 22, 2008 5:41 PM:why do you guys only care about making yourself feeling good by voting for Obama and lambasting HRC? OW was so self-righterous.
I doubt everyone agrees with you regarding the charges. Remember Edwards also attacked the present vote.
At the end of day, you need someone familiar with policies and tackle problems.
You guys must be well-off enough not have to worry about economy and other pressing life issues. so you just want to show how noble you guys are by electing a black president.
Obama's hope sounds nice. But is it possible for him to accomplish all this dreams given the entrenched conservative base of GOP. Remember how antiwar Americans were in 2004? But Kerry still lost the election.
Obama is even to the left of Hillary in terms of policy. He voted for stronger gun control Do you guys think the 2nd amendment mania will rally behind his "hope". Do you think the pro-lifers will rally behind him? Do you think the "tax-cutter" fundamentalist will rally behind his Health care policy?
Wake up. People all hope the country can be united. But how can you unite wish such huge policy divide?
In the end, he will only lose the election.
think about why those poor people and disadvantaged support hillary? Because they really the help of good government policy.
You guys only know how to appear liberal and noble.
Don't forget the government leader is not chief moralist, but someone who can bring about real changes to people in need.
You guys are not people in need. but someone indulged in far left ideologies, feeling good to the neglect of the misery of real people.
Shame on you guys....
it is exactly due you far left guys, Democratic party has lost so many times, unrealitic, self-righteous,
hyporactic.
Wake up...
why do you guys only care about making yourself feeling good by voting for Obama and lambasting HRC? OW was so self-righterous.
I doubt everyone agrees with you regarding the charges. Remember Edwards also attacked the present vote.
At the end of day, you need someone familiar with policies and tackle problems.
You guys must be well-off enough not have to worry about economy and other pressing life issues. so you just want to show how noble you guys are by electing a black president.
Obama's hope sounds nice. But is it possible for him to accomplish all this dreams given the entrenched conservative base of GOP. Remember how antiwar Americans were in 2004? But Kerry still lost the election.
Obama is even to the left of Hillary in terms of policy. He voted for stronger gun control Do you guys think the 2nd amendment mania will rally behind his "hope". Do you think the pro-lifers will rally behind him? Do you think the "tax-cutter" fundamentalist will rally behind his Health care policy?
Wake up. People all hope the country can be united. But how can you unite wish such huge policy divide?
In the end, he will only lose the election.
think about why those poor people and disadvantaged support hillary? Because they really the help of good government policy.
You guys only know how to appear liberal and noble.
Don't forget the government leader is not chief moralist, but someone who can bring about real changes to people in need.
You guys are not people in need. but someone indulged in far left ideologies, feeling good to the neglect of the misery of real people.
Shame on you guys....
it is exactly due you far left guys, Democratic party has lost so many times, unrealitic, self-righteous,
hyporactic.
Wake up...
pkoso - don't assume that some of we Dems will roll over and vote for Hillary. I know more than a few progressives so disgusted with the Clintons that they'll NEVER vote for her. Conscience before party...
More than any other prospective President, from Day One, her decisions will be framed looking towards her re-election, just as her Senate votes were towards 2008.
pkoso wrote on January 22, 2008 6:20 PM:willy...
okay, good point on mccain's support of the war. i'll concede that i overlooked that.
but what if the war continues its transition to the back pages? if that's not an issue...and we've two choices in front of us: a) a polarizing, establishment figure...representative of what many folks dislike about politics, particularly the politics of the last 16 years, or b) a "maverick" who dismisses his own party's most fierce, most fringe elements and manages to present a (media-endorsed) independence and new breed...where do you think voters (beyond the base) will turn?
Martin X. wrote on January 22, 2008 6:37 PM:NC Steve...
You're 1000% right. Obama or Edwards would be the best but, as bad as another 4/8 year Clinton muckfest might be, we can't afford to let the courts get any more right wing.
paul wrote on January 22, 2008 7:37 PM:As a non-Democratic independent, I'm looking form someone with integrity adn competence. Obama is my candidate, but if not him, then I'll look at McCain. The two of them have more integrity than Clinton. McCain was at least right about how to competently fight the war. Instead, we've got a disaster on our hands - a bad war fought badly which undermined our principles (i.e. torture). So tell me why McCain is worse than Clinton. Clinton voted for the war. McCain has taken the firmest stand against torture (Clinton equivocated). The Bushies want Clinton to win. Doesn't that tell you something. If it comes to the war in Iraq, I'm with McCain. If it comes to character, I'm with McCain.
I'd prefer Obama, but McCain is my second choice.
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 22, 2008 7:44 PM:Sampson writes:
Shame on you guys....
it is exactly due you far left guys, Democratic party has lost so many times, unrealitic, self-righteous,
hyporactic.
Wake up...
Actually, the Dems have lost because there are too many people willing to hold their nose. Thus we keep getting candidates who feel like it is "their turn" to run, rather than have real ideas.
I predict the Democratic party would be nicely back on track if the Clintons weren't feeling entitled to something.
The tenor of the Dem campaign is certainly theirs. It started after HRC got creamed in Iowa.
For all their smarts Bill and Hillary have forgotten that you can win the battle but lose the war. The country doesn't need 4 more years of them -- regardless of their political affiliation.
NCSteve, I respectfully disagree.
While an HRC admin is at most 8 years, and the judges may sit for 20, the notion of political dynasties regulating this country is FOREVER.
Primaries came back in the 1970's because people were sick of the backroom politics that didn't give them a say. People like the Bush and Clintons are putting us right back there. I give any Dem running this year HUGE props for being willing to go against the perceived juggernaut of the Clintons. Who knows how many people didn't think more about a run?
This isn't about the Democratic party, it's about the Constitution and the general notion of WE THE PEOPLE.
I will back the strongest candidate in the primaries who can knock HRC out. Ditto for the General Election. Please try to see this for the truly big issue it is.
And this isn't Hillary-hate. I voted for Bill twice. Although I'm very disapppointed in his behavior over the past month. He should be acting like an ex-President first. If he doesn't care about the office, why should I expect any difference from his wife?
The State Editorial said, in part:
"We...have a good idea what a Clinton presidency would look like. The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary"s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored."
I agree and disagree. The State Editorial Board is clearly prophetic about what a new Clinton presidency would unleash. But they are wrong to absolve the Clintons of responsibility.
Mrs. Bill Clinton cannot win the presidency on her own merits, so she, Bill and her mean machine have added the dirty campaign tactics of Bush-Rove to their divide and conquer strategy and are using them against fellow Democrats. Whisper lies, distort positions and comments, attack on opponent's strength and your weakness, suppress minority voters and divide the nation into warring camps: women against men, Hispanics against Blacks against whites, youth against older adults, union members against each other. Just like Bush, Hillary is the candidate of the Washington establishment, status quo. Like Bush she is qualified only by family ties and corporate dollars. Like Bush is a warmonger who serves the interest of unchecked corporate profiteering, receiving record contributions from banks, oil companies, importers like WalMart, healthcare and drug companies, defense contractors. The MOST POLARIZING figure in American politics, she will perpetuate the Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton era of deep political conflicts to prevent a national consensus and protect corporate power over government at the expense of the American people.
We do not need Mrs. Bill Clinton to bring her dishonesty, lack of qualifications, and soap opera marriage into the White House again. We do not need Bill Clinton, red-faced wagging his finger in our faces while he distorts and lies with clever parsing about what "is" is. She is not qualified by character, experience or judgment to lead the nationB and the world. Bill has gone bonkers.
We need change. We do not need the Clintons or the Bushes. We need to unite as a nation and move forward.
