NYTimes goes off on Clinton!

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. Clinton’s 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 Bush’s 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 year’s 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 Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.” She added: “There’s 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

of late is counting the popular vote in FL and MI which is absurd.

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

Thank you for linking it here.

Nominated.

if the rules go by the wayside. We'll probably have the first primary in December of this year.

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?

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.

By all means, stay in but stop trying to destroy the party with that racial shit.

:kick:

"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!

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.

"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.

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

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.