Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton
This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.
The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.
As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.
We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.
By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.
On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.
Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.
It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.
Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.
The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.
The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.
We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave.
On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the same course — shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans, and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind education program.
Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and what must now be done to set things right.
As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)
We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.
Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America’s voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won’t be able to do it town by town.
When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.
Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.
NY Daily News
For Democrats, it has to be Hil: The Daily News endorses Hillary Clinton
Sunday, February 3rd
It has to be Hillary: Sen. Clinton greets supporters at a rally in Los Angeles Saturday. The Daily News praises her as a 'worker' with 'encyclopedic knowledge of the issues.'
Democratic voters in New York and 21 other states have two compelling choices in this week's Super Tuesday primaries. The Daily News recommends a vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton.
The contest between Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama has been vigorous, often uplifting and, at times, infuriating. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, bear responsibility for a spasm of unfair rhetoric, some with racial overtones.
Both candidates have energized supporters with the possibility of victory in November and the certainty that each would bring history to the White House, she as a woman, he as a black man. As Clinton said in Thursday night's debate, "Just by looking at us, you can tell, we are not more of the same. We will change our country."
Equally clear is that both would make a sharp break with the presidency of George W. Bush. Their positions, drawn from mainstream Democratic thinking, are similar and reflect the party's pent-up passion for change. No to extending the Bush tax cuts. Yes to expanding health care coverage. Yes to passing comprehensive immigration reform. Yes to slashing carbon emissions.
And yes to ending the war in Iraq speedily.
On this central issue, we disagree with both candidates. Obama has pledged to accomplish a withdrawal within 16 months. Clinton has promised to begin bringing troops home within 60 days of taking office, but she has declined to set a date certain for completing a pullout. Both are vague as to the size of the residual American force they would leave in Iraq.
Clinton's is the more responsible position in that it leaves open the possibility of adjusting as events dictate. But her plan is still flawed. Whatever the wisdom of going to war in the first place, attempting to schedule an end to America's role without regard to the facts on the ground is foolhardy. The dangers of getting sucked back in under worse conditions or destabilizing the region because of precipitous withdrawal are simply too great.
Where Clinton and Obama differ most is on the critical questions of how they would approach the presidency and who is readier for the Oval Office at a time when the nation and world face increasingly complex challenges.
There Clinton is the stronger candidate, and The News endorses her in this Democratic matchup.
After eight years at the side of President Clinton and seven years representing New York in the U.S. Senate, she is clear-eyed both about the demands of the globe's toughest job and about using the power that comes with it. She would try to lead by doing.
Her celebrity status notwithstanding, Clinton is at heart a worker in the trenches. She has an encyclopedic knowledge of the issues, and her success in the Senate on behalf of New Yorkers attests to both relentless attention to detail and skill at working the levers of power.
Simply put, Clinton delivered, in no small measure by forming alliances with Republicans who had been ardent foes of her husband during his presidential administration. She was a key player in securing critical federal aid after 9/11, and she has fought longer than anyone for sickened Ground Zero workers. Thanks to her dogged advocacy, the Defense Department dropped plans to close military bases around the state.
New Yorkers should appreciate that Clinton devoted herself to the grit of the job - to getting a fair share of monies for transit, housing, hospitals and other purposes - even as she pursued larger national agendas. Democrats elsewhere would do well to assess her possible presidency in the same light. She may not stir the soul, but that's not what day-to-day governing is about.
Obama, on the other hand, is a remarkably inspirational figure. He has an intellect to match Clinton's and has special talents for oratory and connecting with people. His message of hope has been superb.
There's little wonder that many see Obama as embodying the dream of an America that can move beyond race and leave behind the extreme partisanship that bedevils Washington. His supporters trust that he will be a unifying voice for a new day, the ultimate change agent.
But change is not won easily, let alone the sweeping change Clinton and Obama promise to accomplish in the face of staunch opposition - while guiding two wars abroad and the war on terror at home, and advancing America's interests around the world.
The next President will need more than hope to grapple as well with powerful new global tides. A severe and worsening credit crisis, immigration trends, the East-West balance of power - all those and more are in flux with critical consequences for the American economy and way of life. And then there's the question of the planet's very sustainability.
With seven years in the Illinois Legislature under his belt, along with just three in the U.S. Senate, Obama has never met challenges remotely of that magnitude. While no one comes to the presidency with perfect experience, he has been less tested than Clinton. And his conception of providing the vision for an administration rather than serving as an operating officer gives pause.
Obama's bravura performance in the campaign certifies him as a man of great political talent - and governing promise. After further Washington experience, notably in the national security realm, his time to become the Democratic standard-bearer may well arrive.
Clinton's time is here now. Her greater seasoning and instinct for taking command of the executive branch - from the Defense and State departments to homeland security and transportation agencies that just might find money for New York - are decided advantages. So, too, her projection of strength. She is the right choice for the Democrats.
That said, some of her recent tactics and some of those employed by her husband were a distressing throwback to the relentless partisan wars of the Clinton presidency. And Bill Clinton's not-so-subtle invocations of race were demeaning to his former office and destructive to the public discourse.
Both Clintons must recognize that this could not be a co-presidency or even hint at being one. Many in the country admire Bill Clinton, but many fewer want him back in the White House with a public and powerful role. We are endorsing one President, not two.
There would be the new President Clinton, and there would be a husband who left office at the end of eight years as the Constitution required and who remains determinedly out of view. No personal conflicts of interest. No parallel channels of authority. No appearances on the world stage that raise questions about who's in charge.
Based on her experience and her service on behalf of New York, The News backs Hillary Clinton in the full expectation that from here on out she and her husband will abide by standards of fairness - and, more important, that she intends to draw firm, clear lines should she make it to the White House.
