NY POST: Post Endorses Barack Obama

[bidenista]

POST ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA

January 30, 2008 -- Democrats in 22 states across America go to the polls next Tuesday to pick between two presidential prospects: Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

We urge them to choose Obama - an untried candidate, to be sure, but preferable to the junior senator from New York.

Obama represents a fresh start.

His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.

Does America really want to go through all that once again?

It will - if Sen. Clinton becomes president.

That much has become painfully apparent.

Bill Clinton's thuggishly self-centered campaign antics conjure so many bad, sad memories that it's hard to know where to begin.

Suffice it to say that his Peck's-Bad-Boy smirk - the Clinton trademark - wore thin a very long time ago.

Far more to the point, Sen. Clinton could have reined him in at any time. But she chose not to - which tells the nation all it needs to know about what a Clinton II presidency would be like.

Now, Obama is not without flaws.

For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning: Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive; America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.

His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. "Change!" for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make. But he remains a highly intelligent man, with a strong record as a conciliator.

And, again, he is not Team Clinton.

That counts for a very great deal.

A return to Sen. Clinton's cattle-futures deal, Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, the Lincoln Bedroom Fire Sale, Pardongate - and the inevitable replay of the Monica Mess?

No, thank you.

And don't forget the Clintons' trademark political cynicism. How else to explain Sen. Clinton's oft-contradictory policy stands: She voted for the war in Iraq, but now says it was a bad idea. She'd end it yesterday - but refuses to say how.

It's called "triangulation" - the Clintonian tactic by which the ends are played against the middle.

Once, it was effective - almost brilliant. Today, it is tired and tattered - and it reeks of cynicism and opportunism.

Finally, Sen. Clinton stands philosophically far to the left of her husband, and is much more disciplined in pursuit of her agenda.

At least Obama has the ability to inspire.

Again, we don't agree much with Obama on substantive issues.

But many Democrats will.

He should be their choice on Tuesday.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01302008/postopinion/editorials/post_endorses_barack_obama_813218.htm

[Nimrod2005]

1. Amazing, I am stunned!

[Unsane]

2. Lot of NYers glance at the magazine. It may tighten things up a bit in the state.

Hillary is expected to win there of course, but it could get interesting. Gobama.

[NYCGirl]

13. This may win us some of the outer boroughs. NT

[Unsane]

19. agreed

[Adelante]

27. It couldn't be better for us

The blue collar voter reads the New York Post and that's who Obama needs to reach :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

88. Actually, in the real world, you are correct

But had Murdoch endorsed Clinton instead there would be no end to the derision it would bring. The truth is that Clinton is the one running as a more classic Democrat in this race while Obama has positioned himself more toward the center. Obama is getting good, well earned, honest value out of his early oppositon to the Iraq war because it gives him a solid progressive talking point that provides cover for his left flank while he courts the center right.

[rucky]

3. Murdoch?!

the one endorsement I'd hoped had gone to Hillary.

ugh.

[leveymg]

63. "You don't need a Weatherman to tell you which way the wind blows"

Between the Financial Times (UK) (also a Murdoch publication) covering the Sibel Edmonds case and this, I'd say there's a perfect storm coming that's about to sweep the Washington old guard out to sea.

Rupert Murdoch may be an opportunist, but he isn't stupid.

[Metric System]

4. Ha! Well there goes that talking point Obama supporters! Now does this mean Obama is the candidate

the Rethugs want to go up against in November?

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Obama is constantly inviting Republicans to vote for him

and his surragates explain how he will seek unity with Republicans. Why shouldn't Murdoch endorse him?

[rodeodance]

21. Did he/will he the Washinton Times??

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. "Finally, Sen. Clinton stands philosophically far to the left of her husband...

...and is much more disciplined in pursuit of her agenda."

So it seems both "The Nation" AND the "The NY Post" think Hillary is running to the Left of Obama.

HE HAS ACHIEVED UNITY!

[rodeodance]

64. I was ticked off at the Nation when I saw that endorsement.

[robbedvoter]

73. The one thing the Post may be right actually...

[MNDemNY]

7. Congrats Obama!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :pals: :rofl: :rofl:

[Proud2BAmurkin]

8. BAAAHAHA

:rofl:

[Skwmom]

49. Team Clinton/Murdoch should be really proud of themselves.

[Renew Deal]

9. It's the Vegas endorsement all over again.

What a nightmare.

[Skwmom]

37. It's manipulation and not a TRUE endorsement of Obama.

Look through the manipulative B.S.

[jlake]

47. Your tin foil is too tight again.

[Skwmom]

54. I suggest you re-read the so called endorsement.

It is not an endorsement. With an endorsement like that.....

[jlake]

56. I read it, but keep on spinnin'

[Skwmom]

91. Let me make it real simple for you.

Obama - an untried candidate (like Bill Clinton's you'll be rolling the dice meme).

Obama represents a fresh start (the ONLY positive thing said about Obama in this SO-CALLED endorsement besides at the end where it says he can inspire and is a good orator).

His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.

Does America really want to go through all that once again? (Well it beats getting killed).

It will - if Sen. Clinton becomes president.

That much has become painfully apparent.

Bill Clinton's thuggishly self-centered campaign antics conjure so many bad, sad memories that it's hard to know where to begin.
Suffice it to say that his Peck's-Bad-Boy smirk - the Clinton trademark - wore thin a very long time ago. (Attacking Clinton who has such a high favorability rating, and it's the wicked right wing press to boot).

Far more to the point, Sen. Clinton could have reined him in at any time. But she chose not to - which tells the nation all it needs to know about what a Clinton II presidency would be like. (If Sen Clinton can rein him in she's in charge and will control Bill - addresses the criticism that Bill Clinton cannot be controlled.)

Now, Obama is not without flaws. (Wow, after only one point cited in his favor, he's fresh, now the attacks begin).

For all his charisma and his eloquence (Clinton meme - he's nothing but an orator), the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning (he doesn't have Clinton's 35 years of experience): Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive; America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation. (Obama can't defend America, hey the Clintons might have problems but he'll get us all killed).

His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. (One would think they were talking about Clinton here. Take a criticism about Clinton and turn it on her opponent - oh yeah the guy this phony endorsement is supposed to support). "Change!" for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make. (Sounds just like Bill on the stump.) But he remains a highly intelligent man, with a strong record as a conciliator. (He'll cozy up with the big bad Republicans.)

And, again, he is not Team Clinton. (But everyone has said Bill would win a third term which is why they are selling it as TEAM CLINTON. And the exit polls in NH showed more people would vote for him than her).

That counts for a very great deal.

A return to Sen. Clinton's cattle-futures deal, Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, the Lincoln Bedroom Fire Sale, Pardongate - and the inevitable replay of the Monica Mess? (The Monica mess garners sympathy for Clinton - hasn't that poor woman suffered enough for Bill's indiscretions. Plus, don't forget about all of the right wing attacks (Whitewater)...and "obviously" Clinton and Murdoch must not be buddies - the fact that his paper wrote a phony endorsement for Obama repeating many of the Clinton bogus talking points is just a mere coincidence.)

No, thank you.

And don't forget the Clintons' trademark political cynicism...................(The right wing press, Murdoch, no friend of the Clintons (wink, wink) is attacking them because they fear having Hillary Clinton as the nominee. And this proves that the Clinton meme on the big, bad, media is unfairly attacking the Clintons).


Finally, Sen. Clinton stands philosophically far to the left of her husband(she's in the Democratic Primary and had nothing to do with Bill Clinton's selling out the poor and working class), and is much more disciplined in pursuit of her agenda (she'll get the job done).

At least Obama has the ability to inspire. (At least, like he has no other ability).

Again, we don't agree much with Obama on substantive issues.

But many Democrats will.

He should be their choice on Tuesday.

(This also enables the Clinton lie machine to say that this is proof that Murdoch does not support Clinton, that Obama is the nominee the Republicans want, etc).

There's a lot more subtleties but I don't have the time to point them out. Bottom Line: This is NOT and endorsement of Obama and is intended to help the Clintons.

(It's called recognizing substance over form. The form is an endorsement, the substance is that it's NOT AN ENDORSEMENT, it's intended to help the Clintons by reinforcing the negative, false memes about Obama (put out by the Clinton lie machine).

[rodeodance]

55. oh most of us have---Read the threads--we are onto the psychology--

[Barack_America]

10. How could Murdoch not want Hillary to win?

That's what is stunning about this.

The Clintons are his bread and butter. How could he not want to revisit each and every one of those scandals mentioned here? That's money in his wallet. Christ, he even donated to her campaign.

I'm baffled on this one, folks.

[sandnsea]

22. I think it's reverse psychology

Know that a right wing endorsement will make liberals heads' pop. Sounds like more Clintonian politics to me.

[Skwmom]

33. I agree. Why don't more people see this?

[sandnsea]

42. They prefer campaign bilge

Why do they believe Obama is a corporate candidate? :crazy:

[jlake]

50. Grab the tin foil.

[sandnsea]

61. No, just watch the cynical Rovian campaign

the Clintons have run. She sure as hell didn't want this endorsement, what better way to use Murdoch's support than to try to sandbag Obama.

[Adelante]

70. No. She wanted it bad

This is what her blue collar voters read! This is a smack in the face for her in New York.

[Skwmom]

78. This NON endorsement of Obama is better than an endorsement

of Clinton.

[sandnsea]

79. Oh god no she did not n/t

[Adelante]

80. The Post endorsed her for the Senate

She would have expected an endorsement.

[Skwmom]

28. He does want Hillary to win. Read the so called "endorsement "again,

He's inferring that Clinton is the exact opposite of what he says about Obama and he's banking on the Clinton campaign saying - look the Republicans want to run against Obama.

More mind games and manipulation by Clinton and their supporters (Murdoch).

Remember the Clinton is in a panic and She's so Yesterday helped her out in NH and couldn't have worked better if it had been timed to coincide with Bill's "I can't make her a male, I can't make her younger" spiel. (I'm sure it was.) Also think about the words to the song Yesterday.

Plus Clinton's escapades always help Hillary with the "sympathy" vote.

[jlake]

48. You are kidding, right? It is clear the Neocons love Obama.

Just look at all of his other endorsements.

[robbedvoter]

69. The only stunning thing is your refusal to see who's helping you and why

[goldcanyonaz]

11. Awesome Endorsement! Or, no?

:woohoo:

[rodeodance]

18. yup. Obama gets the tabloid of ny: aka the Nat. Inquirer.

[Skwmom]

36. No,

[rodeodance]

12. obama campers having a meltdown on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4296971&mesg_id=4296971

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Congratulations

~

[Yossariant]

15. Another right wing rag picks the candidate of choice for the Republicans.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

16. "He's scary and naive and he'll get us all killed but damnit we hate Hilly" lmao

[rodeodance]

58. that about sums it up!!

[Debi]

17. Oh My..

:yoiks:

That's kind of a blessing and a curse all rolled into one.

[Skwmom]

20. This is not a true endorsement.

"For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning: Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive; America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation."

Well he was seasoned enough and had the sound judgment to come out against the BIGGEST foreign policy/national debacle of our time.

His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. "Change!" for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make. But he remains a highly intelligent man, with a strong record as a conciliator.

All things to all people - sounds like he is talking about Hillary Clinton here. More garbage. This is NOT an endorsement.

[bidenista]

24. lol

[rodeodance]

30. and when his Home Town paper said COME CLEAN ON REZCO--that was not a true

endorsement either?

chigaco trib did endorse obams

[russian33]

23. that's just precious

i thought Murdoch was Hillary's boyfriend, supporter, friend, etc, etc, etc??

[Bitwit1234]

25. Rudolphs newspaper...that canny old devil trying to knock Hillary out.

wont' work...New Yorkers, that is New Yorkers who are ANYBODY read the Times.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. this is a pretty shameful endorsement.

[shaniqua6392]

29. Endorsed by a Rupert Murdoch tabloid newspaper???

How embarrassing for Obama. It would be like being endorsed by Fox News.

[rodeodance]

32. those pundits at fox are too buzy chirping out hate about Hilliary to think about obama.

[Skwmom]

40. They want Hillary to get the sympathy vote.

The only favorable thing they said about Obama was that he is fresh. That is NO endorsement. And the rest that they criticized him for was totally wrong.

[Marie26]

45. So it's reverse psychology?

How devious of Murdoch.

[Skwmom]

62. Any idiot can be devious. It's so over the top that it's obviously NOT

intended to be an endorsement.

[Marie26]

87. IMO it's more

that Murdoch really, really, really hates the Clintons.

[Marie26]

46. So it's reverse psychology?

How devious of Murdoch.

[rodeodance]

51. i don't listen much lately but when i do listen there sure is a lot Hill hate

[madrchsod]

31. the post?

strange days my friends, strange days

[Marie26]

34. Isn't this an anti-endorsement? nt

[rodeodance]

39. lol

[Marie26]

35. Dupe. nt

[rodeodance]

38. deserves a REC

[Marie26]

41. Republicans love Obama!

:evilgrin:

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. Let's share this wonderful news! K & R!

:rofl:

[Perry Logan]

44. Some of those sentences were awfully long.

[robbedvoter]

52. BUT, BUT...MURDOCH...HILLARY..IN BED - are some heads exploding?

here's an old question for Obama folk:

Why are the people who brought us Bush pushing Obama
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4263047

[Skwmom]

57. They are in bed. It's not an endorsement.

[robbedvoter]

74. Of course not, dear. neither is Russert's, Peggy Noonan's, Bill Schneider's

and all the other RW-ers that sing Obama's praises

[Skwmom]

81. CNN constantly showed the hits against Obama at the last debate

without showing Obama's response (so spare me the media has given Obama a pass). What about repeatedly showing the fake snub WITHOUT showing the 4 pictures that are posted here?

Since when has the media asked - what exactly is your 35 years of experience? Furthermore, Russert is not in the same camp as Murdoch. As far as right wingers singing his praises - a smart move considering many independents and Democrats are disgusted with the Clinton antics against Obama. They are already courting general election voters.

[ClericJohnPreston]

53. RES IPSA LOQUITUR

"IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF"

Here comes the Obama Camp spin machine.

[Skwmom]

59. This has the Murdoch/Clinton Machine written all over it.

[bidenista]

66. huh?

Do you seriously think the Clintons are now engineering endorsements against themselves?

[robbedvoter]

75. Clenis did it again! Poor wittle Obama!

[DiamondJay]

90. Murdoch/Who machine?

[rodeodance]

60. The Post is using obama like a doormat to get at hillary.

[Skwmom]

92. The POST is helping Hillary.

[rodeodance]

65. and a HIGH-FIVE to Obama and his happy campers.

[ClericJohnPreston]

67. As you ponder this endorsement

Think about how Daily Kos tells people to vote for the WEAKEST RETHUG CANDIDATE, who they perceive to be Stepford candidate, Mitt Romney.

The Post is the Rethug equivalent of Daily Kos. If they support Obama, then they are supporting who they believe is the weakest candidate.

Fascinating.........

[Skwmom]

84. B.S. If they wanted people to vote for OBAMA they would have

written a real endorsement.

[rodeodance]

68. "we don't agree much with Obama on substantive issues"-At least Obama has the ability to inspire. Ge

e, that does not say much at all about Obama.



At least Obama has the ability to inspire.

Again, we don't agree much with Obama on substantive issues.

[AX10]

85. It's just like Bush in 2000.

Amazing how history repeats itself.

[BootinUp]

71. Oh LOL what an endorsement GoBAMA nt

[AX10]

72. How nice.

The Post will endorse a candidate that is "naive" just because they have a blind of hate Hillary.
That just about sums everything about the Obama campaign.

[Skwmom]

76. Obama was WISE enough to come out against the War. Was Clinton

naive or just willing to send people of to die so she wouldn't be viewed as weak on national defense?

[ClericJohnPreston]

82. Is that why Obama has

voted to fund the War each time?

[Skwmom]

83. Once you have SOLIDERS in the field, it's not so easy to pull the

funding. Plus, you want to do all you can to make it a success.

[Clinton Crusader]

77. Oh but I thought HILLARY was in cahoots with Murdoch?

:shrug:

[robbedvoter]

86. Still is. Apparently this is reverse psychology - devious plot to make people

vote for Hillary. Everything in the world that is bad can always be traced to the Clenis. But you knew that, I bet.

[Maven]

89. "A strong record as a conciliator"

His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. "Change!" for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make. But he remains a highly intelligent man, with a strong record as a conciliator.

At least they're honest about their motivations.

[angie_love]

93. Alot of Ny'ers read the NY Post

Laugh all you want guys, but the NYPost is VERY VERY VERY popular in NYC. Liberals, repubs, everyone reads it there. This endorsement may not help nationally but it will help locally. Its a very widely read tab in NY.

[DiamondJay]

94. "Clinton's cattle-futures deal, Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, the Lincoln Bedroom Fire Sale" ???

THOSE WERE PHONY SCANDALS that were not 'scandal" worthy, and i'm pretty sure the Reagan and Bush White Houses did similar things much shadier. I won't even use the superlative. It is the white house's decision who works in the travel office. And I'm pretty sure furniture was sold when other presidents left the white house. The Clinton White House was the most honest one in recent history. There were no 'scandals". They were completely legitamte. THEY CARE FOR THE PEOPLE. I think trading weapons for hostages is a fuck of a lot worse. Bill kept America safe without scaring us to death, and gave us the best economy since Lyndon Johnson. The media just hated Clinton because he wasn't some boring old square who would always be faithful to his wife, and was part of what was RIGHT about the 60's, not what was wrong about the 40s' which Reagan and Bush-squared were. They stood for segregation and women barefoot and pregnant. Clinton cared for inclusion, and women's rights. The old farts in the media were not only resentful of what he stood for, but of how successful he was in everything