Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYTimes goes off on Clinton!

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
 
BklynChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 05:39 AM
Original message
NYTimes goes off on Clinton!
Edited on Fri May-09-08 05:42 AM by BklynChick
Well, good for them. Great editorial.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09fri1.html

Sen. Clinton and the Campaign
Published: May 9, 2008

There is a lot of talk that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now fated to lose the Democratic nomination and should pull out of the race. We believe it is her right to stay in the fight and challenge Senator Barack Obama as long as she has the desire and the means to do so. That is the essence of the democratic process.

But we believe just as strongly that Mrs. Clinton will be making a terrible mistake for herself, her party and for the nation if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones. We believe it would also be a terrible mistake if she launches a fight over the disqualified delegations from Florida and Michigan.

The United States needs a clean break from eight catastrophic years of George W. Bush. And so far, Senator John McCain is shaping up as Bush the Sequel neverending war in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich while the middle class struggles, courts packed with right-wing activists intent on undoing decades of progress in civil rights, civil liberties and other vital areas.

The Democratic Party must field the most effective and vibrant candidate it possibly can. More attack ads and squabbling will not help achieve that goal. If Mr. Obama wins, he will be that much more battered and the party will be harder to unite. Win or lose, Mrs. Clintons reputation will suffer more harm than it already has.

She owes more to millions of Americans who have voted for her (and particularly to New Yorkers, who are entitled to expect that if she loses, she will return to the Senate with her influence and integrity intact).

In addition to abandoning the attack ads, Mrs. Clinton must drop her plans to fight to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan, which defied the Democratic Party and moved up the dates of their primaries. A lot of people voted in Florida anyway, but Mrs. Clinton should not pursue this nuclear option. It would make the Democrats look unable to control their own, just when they want to make a case that they can lead the entire nation.

Both candidates have been vowing in the last two days to unite the party, and Mr. Obama could do more to rein in his anonymous campaign aides and other supporters who spend their days trashing Mrs. Clinton.

The undeclared superdelegates should stop their coy posing. With few exceptions, there is no reason left (other than the hope of making back-room deals) for those whose states have voted to keep their positions private. The rest should state their allegiance as soon as their primaries are held in the next few weeks.

There is a lot that Senators Clinton and Obama need to be talking about in coming weeks, starting with how they will extract the country from President Bushs disastrous Iraq war. A robust debate about health care and the mortgage crisis would remind all American voters of what is at stake in this years election. It would also prepare whoever wins the nomination to be a better debater and campaigner in the fall.

We endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and we know that she has a major contribution to make. But instead of discussing her strong ideas, Mrs. Clinton claimed in an interview with USA Today that she would be the better nominee because a recent poll showed that Senator Obamas support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. She added: Theres a pattern emerging here.

Yes, there is a pattern a familiar and unpleasant one. It is up to Mrs. Clinton to change it if she hopes to have any shot at winning the nomination or preserving her integrity and her influence if she loses.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 05:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. Howard Dean has said that it is not fair to punish the voters in Florida and Michigan
Dean has said that it is not the voters fault that their primary dates were moved up to January.

He has said that he wants to find a solution that respects the rights of voters who took part in these 2 primaries.

If such a solution can be found by the DNC rules Committee then I hope both the candidates will accept it.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that by raising this issue, Hillary Clinton is taking a "nuclear option".

Ignoring the rights of voters in Florida and Michigan could be very dangerous for the Democratic Party.

In particular, it would undermine the chances of the Democratic ticket to win these States in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. There is a fundamental difference
between saying Florida and Michigan should be seated in some fashion (which I agree with) and using the two states as a ploy to further your sinking campaign. Clinton is clearly doing the latter of those two. The two states should be punished in some way by losing part of their delegates to the convention. Clinton is clearly advocating no punishment by demanding that the full delegates be seated. It is her use of Florida and Michigan as a ploy and demanding they be fully seated specifically that she is dead wrong about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. If it's not fair to punish them, then don't add a consequence in the first place
Which takes names off of a ballot or causes some people to stay home because they believe their vote wouldn't count. You really can't have it both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. If FL and MI are not punished at all
What's to stop EVERY single state from moving up their primary in 2012. This is about 2012 and preventing chaos in future elections. Everybody knows that FL and MI will be seated. The DNC just wants to make their lawmakers sweat a little bit. I guarantee that they are getting phone calls and e-mails daily from their constituents complaining about being disenfranchised, asking them what they are going to do about it. Howard Dean knows this. That's why he scheduled to seat them on 5/31. It's before the Convention but long enough to scare the crap out of those legislators who are getting thousands of e-mails complaining from their constituents. Dean is punishing the legislators, not the states. The states WILL be seated, but the legislators will take some irreparable damage from their voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
18. Threatening the Democratic Party...
is very much in vogue today. Hillary's uber-wealthy contributors threaten Nancy Pelosi with cutting off their financial support for future races, and two rogue states along with Hillary, threaten the Democratic Party with the peoples votes in those states. The Democratic Party is not the "Michigan and Florida Democratic Party", nor is it the "Hillary Clinton Democratic Party". Why give in to extortion demands...and why did Hillary reject Michigan's latest proposal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BklynChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 05:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. Dean has said he will find a way to seat the delegates. What Clinton has been talking about again
of late is counting the popular vote in FL and MI which is absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boobooday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 05:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. Ouch!
:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
4. Very important editorial.
Thank you for linking it here.

Nominated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
5. All I know is primary season will be very entertaining for 2012
if the rules go by the wayside. We'll probably have the first primary in December of this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meshuga Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
6. Very well put
by the NYT. I have no problems having Senator Clinton stay in the rece for the rest of the primaries. But with her attitude and comments she is going to potentially hurt the party, her reputation, and perhaps our chances in November. :mad:

She is saying similar stuff that got her husband in trouble (after the South Carolina contest), I mean, what is she thinking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 06:20 AM
Response to Original message
7. Much as I might agree with this
I bristle at reading dire warnings about continuing "eight catastrophic years of George W. Bush" from the newspaper that helped the little shitweasel burn the country down. A couple of columns over from this editorial you'll find Bill Fucking Kristol's happy face beaming from inside their imperious self-satisfied clubhouse.

The collective staff of the NY Times can come over and blow me anytime they want to. That's an open-ended offer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Window Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 06:20 AM
Response to Original message
8. So very true. I hope someone can get through to her very soon.
By all means, stay in but stop trying to destroy the party with that racial shit.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1776Forever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 06:28 AM
Response to Original message
10. To me this says it all........
"She owes more to millions of Americans who have voted for her (and particularly to New Yorkers, who are entitled to expect that if she loses, she will return to the Senate with her influence and integrity intact)."

She has to start thinking about the country and her constituents! This is more important then the bruised ego of the Clinton's and their supporters! IT is for the good of the country that she must do this!

Enough!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
12. Know why I love the NY Times? It's owned by a single family!
Edited on Fri May-09-08 07:48 AM by HamdenRice
It has outside shareholders and is a giant corporation -- but it is one that a single family has managed to maintain majority control over.

That family, the Sulzberger family is moderately liberal and has no direct connections to defense contractors, arms manufacturers or for that matter many interests outside Times media properties.

That's why they can continue to actually write about things in a complex manner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Amnesia much? Judith Miller ring a bell?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judasdisney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Damn right. One good editorial doesn't atone for 8 years of complicity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
13. Excellent point about her diminishing her influence as NY's Senator
"She owes more to millions of Americans who have voted for her (and particularly to New Yorkers, who are entitled to expect that if she loses, she will return to the Senate with her influence and integrity intact)."

But does she really care about that? Why is she New York's senator in the first place? It always looked to me as if she was simply using NY as a stepping stone, and her recent activities have certainly not reduced that impression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doityourself Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
15. Fantastic editorial!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nomorewhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
17. this is why I read the NY Times. They can summarize my thoughts with excellent writing
they can say it much better than i ever could

btw this is a big deal. the nytimes editorial page sets the news agenda that is covered by many networks/papers across the country. obviously the new political question that will dominate cable news will be "when will she drop out?", and the like
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
19. A good call by the TIMES. That last paragraph is spot on, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:44 AM
Response to Original message
21. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
22. I think Obama's fans calling Clinton's fans racists changes the equation bigtime.
Edited on Sat May-10-08 06:16 AM by Perry Logan
The writer forgets that the Obama people have thoroughly smeared not only Hillary but her fans as well, by calling them racists.

Earth calling Obamites. That's not a good thing to say to a fellow Democrat, if your goal is party reconciliation and unity.

It's quite a stretch to think Hillary people are going to support a candidate after his followers have called them racist. I can't believe some of Obama's supporters stooped to this.
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 Thu Aug 21st 2014, 10:21 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