NYT: Hillary Clinton, 1 of most broadly & deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-endorsement.htmlFor the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.
Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm.
Mrs. Clinton’s main opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, has proved to be more formidable than most people, including Mrs. Clinton, anticipated. He has brought income inequality and the lingering pain of the middle class to center stage and pushed Mrs. Clinton a bit more to the left than she might have gone on economic issues. Mr. Sanders has also surfaced important foreign policy questions, including the need for greater restraint in the use of military force.
In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.
~~
~~
Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading Republican candidates offer — a vision in which middle-class Americans have a real shot at prosperity, women’s rights are enhanced, undocumented immigrants are given a chance at legitimacy, international alliances are nurtured and the country is kept safe.
(more)
NYT endorses Clinton. Now comes the scorn from GOPers and Bernie Sanders supporters!!
= new reply since forum marked as read
rocktivity
And the system is still a nightmare for far too many people. Coverage is rising in cost, too many people still fall through the complicated cracks, and Big Insurance is getting bigger and more powerful and more of a monopoly.
As for the economy, that was an opportunity to actually press to begin to ursurp the lopsided structure of power and wealth in this country -- and start to restore a more balanced and broadly based system. Instead we have reinforced it, with a few tweaks around the edges.
I agree with you about the need about strategy at the lower levels? But to be perfectly honest, this campaign has revealed a total lack of support within the Democratic power structure for grass roots reformist liberal politics.
I will grant that many people do not see Bernie as the ideal candidate. That is a totally legitimate opinion, and fodder for a competitive campaign.
But why does that have to entail trashing the idea of liberal goals and aspirations -- and why concede defeat to the GOP from the start (yet again). "That's a good idea, but we can never do that. It's too hard."
How is a message like that supposed to excite voters and reenergize the Democratic Party? That is a surefire formula to convince people to either go for the party that actually sells something-- the GOP -- or to avoid the whole thing and give in to apathy and "they're all the same" cynicism.
(P.S. I like you fine. But I get passionate about this stuff....and carried way sometimes 
)
