Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"the State's" endorsement slaps Hillary hard...full text

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 04:28 PM
Original message
"the State's" endorsement slaps Hillary hard...full text
Edited on Tue Jan-22-08 04:32 PM by Perky
THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY in South Carolina this year offers voters an unusual choice. Earlier votes have winnowed out the most experienced candidates, leaving a field with fewer accomplishments and differences on policy, but including two candidates who come with the promise to make history just because of who they are.

Looking at the remaining field: Rep. Dennis Kucinich offers a bold plan on health care, but his platform is unlikely to endear him to many in South Carolina. John Edwards has morphed away from the optimist who won South Carolina in 2004. The candidate who stayed mostly above the fray four years ago is angry now, and pushing hard to turn working-class angst into political opportunity. He also has tried to one-up the other top Democrats with the least prudent plan for withdrawing from Iraq.

On positions from Iraq to health care, the policy differences between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are minute. Much of the debate between them has involved making these molehills look mountainous or clashing over who-shifted-when.

The one most significant difference between them can be found in how they would approach the presidency - and how the nation might respond.

Hillary Clinton has been a policy wonk most of her life, a trait she has carried into the U.S. Senate. As her debate performances have shown, she has intelligence and a deep understanding of many issues. Her efforts in New York focused first on learning her adopted state’s issues in detail, and pursuing legislation that would not necessarily grab headlines.

But we also 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. 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.

Can such unity be restored, in this poisonous political culture? Not unless that is a nominee’s goal from the outset. It will be a difficult challenge for any candidate; but we wait in the hope that someone really will try. There is no other hope for rescuing our republic from the mire.

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.

He would close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, which has damaged America’s moral standing, and strive to rebuild many diplomatic relationships.

Despite America’s bitter partisan divide, all sides should agree on this: In such an environment, little gets done. Congress has been largely useless under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Setting aside the ideological conflict for conflict’s sake to get anything worthwhile done has fallen severely out of fashion.

And America certainly has things to get done.

From terrorism and climate change to runaway federal entitlement spending, there are big challenges to be faced. 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 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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Kick for emphasis change
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. What do the Clinton's need to be vindicated for?
And all the other candidates on both sides have no desire to "secure victory?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rox63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. K&R for Obama!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well, This Is One Paper That Has It ALL WRONG About Edwards...
What they just said is an out right LIE! I'm not just ANGRY, I'm totally PISSED!!

And that's what we need to get some change in D.C.!! IMHO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. Fluff piece
I wish I could de-rec it. Assuming we win this year, the Repub noise machine will be non-stop, no matter who we nominate...and Obama is going to waste his time trying to take them back into the fold?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. Yes,
The baggage Hillary would bring to the White House would be heavy indeed. And going back to a repeat of the 90s is not what a lot of Americans have in mind for a new century. Obama is the only one of the three who represents a fresh slate, because Edwards ran in '04 and in that way isn't fresh either. This is a change election and people are fed up with leftovers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. Disagree that their differences are minute
To low income people, the difference between a fully funded subsidized health package and a mandated tax credit is a MOUNTAIN for sure. Otherwise, I agree the most important difference is whether we want to willingly continue the wars of the last 30 years, or try to get beyond them. This is one of the more accurate endorsements I've read. Exact reasons we need to elect Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
8. Obvously written before the debate n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
9. That's not "Hard"
"As her debate performances have shown, she has intelligence and a deep understanding of many issues. Her efforts in New York focused first on learning her adopted state’s issues in detail, and pursuing legislation that would not necessarily grab headlines."

Not flashy but very positive.

As to the section highlighted by the OP:

"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 would not exactly call that a slap at Hillary. What people forget sometimes is that Bill Clinton entered the White House as a "New Democrat" willing to work with Republicans to find new approaches to solve America's problems cooperatively. Republicans didn't attack Bill Clinton because he was so naturally divisive, they worked to make him into a divisive figure because Bill Clinton was talented at reaching out to Americans of various ideological beliefs, and that talent threatened the Republican Party hold on power and their effort to create a permanent Republican majority.

Personally I was not all that thrilled with some of the "new" part of Bill Clinton's "Democrat", but people should not deceive themselves; he walked the walk, not just talked the talk, of being a uniter not a divider and the Republican Party absolutely HATED him for that, and that is why it became so important to them to try to destroy the Clintons.

I'm all for unity when it is arrived at honestly and serves a positive purpose for all Americans, but I am not so naive as to think that the modern Republican Party will peacefully lay down their knives after a President Barack Obama preaches unity to them as a core value.

Hillary has been practicing the nuts and bolts of unity in New York State, making progress and getting things done for most New Yorkers. I think that counts for something too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
10. You call that a slap?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
11. Hillary Presidency = Waste of 4 years
I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. precisely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
13. Oustanding!
:applause: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
14. If The State is against Hillary, it's a point in her favor.
The State is a hard-right paper in the capital of one of the deepest-red states in the country. South Carolina should not be an indicator of any Democrats' appeal on the national stage. In fact, I'm mad that such a partisan state gets such an early primary - it definitely pulls our candidates to the right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rydz777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Agreed. An endorsement of any Democrat by "The State" is a joke. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
16. A lot of people are looking
for a new direction that will highlight healing through transformation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teleharmonium Donating Member (64 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
18. agreed on every point
but actually they were pretty easy on Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC