HARTFORD COURANT ENDORSES @HillaryClinton Most Qualified & Effective

[riversedge]

HARTFORD COURANT ENDORSES @HillaryClinton Most Qualified & Effective #CTPrimary #ImWithHer http://cour.at/1qQ9eRa #gunsense






Why Mrs. Clinton?

The state and nation are in an uneasy place. ............................

Few candidates in history have had Mrs. Clinton's prepping for such challenges. As a senator from New York, she was more effective at legislating than Sen. Sanders was, The Washington Post says. As secretary of state, she secured the tough sanctions against Iran that eventually led the dismantling of much of its nuclear program. While first lady, she shrugged off the failure of her health-care-for-all plan in 1993 and set about helping to get millions of poor children coverage.

...........................


Mr. Sanders is right to ask whether Mrs. Clinton is too embedded in the establishment to change it. The question is whether Mr. Sanders has the political tools to change it. She does. She has often crossed the divide to solve problems, whether negotiating a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas or getting Republican support for the Children's Health Insurance Program.

We believe she can do the one thing that President Obama has not done and that Mr. Sanders may not do, with his ambivalent record on guns (including voting against the Brady bill) — use her political skills to get greater gun controls. Dec. 14, 2012, has tragically made that Connecticut's salient issue.

As a moderate Democrat, she might appeal to a wider swath of independents in the general election than Mr. Sanders would. This is no small matter because Democrats need someone who can beat the Republican front-runner who would be ruinous as president: Donald Trump.

The next president will need a spine to preserve the gains made by Obamacare in insuring Americans. She has it. Mr. Sanders would undo those gains by starting anew, at enormous expense, with a single-payer system. Republicans would also undo them, just to erase a Democratic legacy.

Why Not Mr. Sanders?

Mr. Sanders is appealing in his promises: Who doesn't want tuition-free universities, single-payer health care and bigger Social Security checks? But the costs are far greater than he's acknowledging. Also, the tax increases required would make Congress keel over. Finally, the quality of his Medicare-for-all system wouldn't match today's.

He is idealistic. But he is also unrealistic.

Mrs. Clinton has turned dreams into laws. She has fought for the underclass, championing the causes of women and children around the world. Her grasp of foreign policy is deep — including, through sorry experience, the limits of U.S. power.

Given her resume, few people today are more qualified for the Oval Office than she is.

[Hoyt]

1. These few words summarize it for me -- "He is idealistic. But he is also unrealistic."

Who can argue with his idealism?

In fact, Sanders' supporters like to claim those who are realistic aren't for single payer, "free" education, etc. I'm for single payer, but not for lying about, or obfuscating, what it will cost and cramming it down the throats of over 40% of the population that are adamantly against it in their ignorance. That's why I'm for a Public Option. If it is as good as we think/hope, people will gravitate to the Public Option quickly. I believe it gets us to Single Payer faster than all of Sanders' yelling and idealism.

[Lucinda]

2. Thanks much!

[JaneyVee]

3. Good choice.

[Scurrilous]

4. K & R

[auntpurl]

5. K&R