May 7, 2008

The NYT does not say it's time for Hillary Clinton to bow out.

The editorial today is called "It's About the White House," and it's about the importance of defeating John McCain, but if you think it's going to say Hillary needs to withdraw so Obama can concentrate on defeating John McCain, you are wrong.
There are few policy differences between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. But there is a vast gulf between Mr. McCain and the two Democrats — and far too little difference between Mr. McCain and President Bush.

Instead of sparring, pointlessly, about who first opposed Nafta or which of these Ivy League-educated lawyers has a more common touch, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton should explain what they will do to restore the balance of power and protect civil liberties. They need to talk a lot more about addressing the health care crisis and the mortgage crisis and how they would bring American troops home and contain the chaos in Iraq.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama can continue to tear each other up and fight over each superdelegate, or they can debate the issues — for the sake of the voters.
Translation: It's just fine for Hillary Clinton to stay in the race. I wish they'd say why there's reason for her to continue instead of pretending there are some issues that could be emphasized and sharpened!

"They need to talk a lot more...." Arrgghhhhh!

34 comments:

Mortimer Brezny said...

If she had been competing with Obama on who can take on McCain best, there wouldn't have been a problem. Hillary had more money than McCain and was amplifying McCain's message. What she should do if she stays in is spend every dollar bashing the hell out of McCain, bringing up his gaffes and weird associations, acts of pandering and skewed "straight-talk".

Simon said...

The NYT says..."Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama can continue to tear each other up and fight over each superdelegate, or they can debate the issues — for the sake of the voters."

I had thought that Obama had made clear that he isn't willing to debate her any more.

Sloanasaurus said...

I didn't know there was a health care crisis?

This election will be a fascist Liberal - Obama vs. a center-liberal - McCain. It's 1912 all over again. No wonder hard core liberals are so giddy.

Maguro said...

...how they would bring American troops home and contain the chaos in Iraq.

American troops are the ones controlling the chaos in Iraq. If they're "brought home" it won't be the US controlling the chaos, it will either be 1) someone else controlling the chaos or 2) uncontrolled chaos. Amazing that so many can't see this.

Sloanasaurus said...

There are differences.

Obama - higher taxes for everyone
McCain - lower taxes for everyone

Obama - government chooses your health care

McCain - you choose your health care

Obama - put in judges who legislate liberal policies from the bench

McCain - Put in judges who let the legislatures legislate.

Obama - Offers no realistic solution to higher gas prices.

McCain - Offers no realistic solution to higher gas prices.

Obama - fascist ideology

McCain - almost a fascist ideology.

rhhardin said...

The NYT is written for upscale morons. But they know that already.

Sloanasaurus said...

American troops are the ones controlling the chaos in Iraq. If they're "brought home" it won't be the US controlling the chaos, it will either be 1) someone else controlling the chaos or 2) uncontrolled chaos. Amazing that so many can't see this.

An interesting point. If you replace chaos with "$100 billion in oil revenues," then withdrawing from Iraq seems even more moronic. But, I suppose Obama has a plan for that too.

Palladian said...

"But, I suppose Obama has a plan for that too."

Yes and I bet that it involves "change" and "hope". Obama will rescue those poor, bitter soldiers who are clinging to their guns, after all.

dbp said...

What is the label "hgjsj" mean? This is the only post it brings up.

Is it an acronym for Hillary Gives Journalists Some Joy?

George said...

If Obama is more likely to be the nominee and it turns out late in the summer that he is likely to be beat McCain, does that raise the likelihood that the US (and/or Israel) will whomp Iran—before the election?

Hillary and McCain have vied to out-hawk each other; if elected, one would presume they would not hesitate to use force, either preemptively or as a response.

Using force before the election would a) make McCain more attractive and/or b) box in Obama, forcing him to be more hawkish.

Does that make any sense?

MadisonMan said...

Obama - higher taxes for everyone
McCain - lower taxes for everyone


Exactly how, sloan, is McCain going to pay for the war and all the entitlements that Bush and the Republicans passed before 2006?

Let me guess: He's gonna borrow more and more from China and keep running up the deficit and let the next generation worry about it.

My prediction is that the next President will raise taxes.

chickenlittle said...

Obama's grace will be the first casualty in the next war.

Simon said...

MM, you're a lot more pessimistic than am I about McCain dealing with entitlement spending.

P. Rich said...

far too little difference between Mr. McCain and President Bush.

Thus sayeth the NYT, so it must be so. Or it could just be that the bird-cage liner of choice is already practicing Dem slogans for the national campaign. You lefties be sure and hang on to that NYT stock now, ya heah.

MadisonMan said...

Yes, Simon, I am pessimistic. I'm sure there are commenters who say we can grow the economy (Making grow an action verb like that bugs me) -- but with manufacturing leaving and housing slumping, what is the engine that will be driving the growth?

Sloanasaurus said...

I am pessimistic. I'm sure there are commenters who say we can grow the economy (Making grow an action verb like that bugs me) -- but with manufacturing leaving and housing slumping, what is the engine that will be driving the growth?

The trouble for democrats with this economy is that there are many sectors that are booming at the moment, especially energy, agriculture, and exports. Obama, however, seem to be against these sectors, he wants winfall taxes for energy companies and is anti-free trade.

The best thing any candidate can do is increase our energy supply in the most efficient manner (i.e. build more power plants and drill for more oil). That will help everyone across the board from consumer to business.

Balfegor said...

Translation: It's just fine for Hillary Clinton to stay in the race. I wish they'd say why there's reason for her to continue instead of pretending there are some issues that could be emphasized and sharpened!

They're no longer worried that she'll successfully defeat their chosen candidate for the nomination.

Trevor Jackson said...

their chosen candidate

That crafty NYTimes, endorsing the candidate they didn't want to win!

Roger J. said...

Mort notes: "What she should do if she stays in is spend every dollar bashing the hell out of McCain, bringing up his gaffes and weird associations, acts of pandering and skewed "straight-talk"." Seems if you replace McCain with Obama, she has done that, and for precisely the reasons you listed!

While I don't like either democratic candidate, I don't think McCain is going to be a fiscal conservative. He spent too much time in the Old Boy's Club, I fear. Count me in with MM on the issue of entitlements. Until the Republic is face to face with a bankrupt entitlement program, nothing will happen. --and when it does happen, it will be a terribly bad congressional response.

tomb1 said...

Every day I look on the NYT web site to see their picture and endorsement of Hillary: "The editorial board endorses Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination."

It's still there this morning, though it has been looking stale for quite some time.

It will be interesting to see if/when/how the NYT removes it. With fanfare or in the dark of night? Now where did they put those egg-on-face-removing baby wipes?

Roger J. said...

tomb1--as soon as they can figure out how to get off the internet cache files, it will be in the dark of night--the NYT never admits error.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Yes, Simon, I am pessimistic. I'm sure there are commenters who say we can grow the economy (Making grow an action verb like that bugs me) -- but with manufacturing leaving and housing slumping, what is the engine that will be driving the growth?"

I'm pessimistic too, but for entirely different reasons. BTW. What is wrong with grow as an action verb. Don't we "grow" vegetables in our gardens?

My pessimism has to do with the fact that we will most likely see a raise in taxes that will further depress the economy.

Why is manufacturing leaving? High corporate taxes, high payroll taxes, extortionate Union benefit packages, over regulation by multiple and often competing entities, excessive environmental rules, windfall profits taxes. Manufacturers are not fools. If they can make money elsewhere they will go there.

The engine that drives the economy is entrepreneurs, small businesses, manufacturing and unrestricted free trade. Killing those with excessive taxes and wiping out our trade overseas. Also by putting protectionist tariffs and restrictive quotas on incoming trade which will result in restrictions on our outgoing trade will be the death knell of our economy. Just as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act brought us the joys of the Great Depression.

We never ever learn. Liberal/Socialist ideas do not work.

So yeah. I'm pessimistic because I don't think it matters which one of these unqualified people become President. We are in the tunnel and the trains are going full steam at each other because the engineers driving the trains are idiots. Unfortunately, the passengers can't get off of the train.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Exactly how, sloan, is McCain going to pay for the war and all the entitlements that Bush and the Republicans passed before 2006?

Well in all fairness, all I hear Obama saying is that all the money we're wasting in Iraq can be better wasted here at home.

So in essence, he'll raise taxes to pay for more liberal social programs yet I heard zip from any of the candidates on how they plan on balancing the budget and paying off the deficit.

Hey, here's a concept. How about we let the Iraqis pay their own way and rather then spend more money at home on more failed social programs, instead try paying off the debt so my kid isn't saddled with it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Until the Republic is face to face with a bankrupt entitlement program

What would you refer to $42 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities if not bankruptcy?

As for borrwing from China, pardon me but China was buying our debt long before Bush stumbled into the White House and I don't recall many people getting exorcised then.

MadisonMan said...

What is wrong with grow as an action verb. Don't we "grow" vegetables in our gardens?

I think the more precise way for a govt entity -- and they're the ones always saying it -- to say it is that the Govt will help the Economy to grow. It's not the business of the Government to grow the economy, but to lay down the fertilizer and let things rip.

It's not an entirely rational view on my part, but I'm irrational about many things: Bad grammer, Rudy Giuliani (Despot it waiting, just feel it in my gut!) and Cindy McCain (another gut feeling: Stepford. I think it's the hairdo).

Hoosier, having the Iraqis pay for things is a great idea. In fact, that was the plan as I recall. Unfortunately for my kids and grandchildren (if there are any), execution of the plan was piss-poor, and US Taxpayers get to foot the bill. Except it's not the present taxpayers holding the bill, it's the future ones.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Unfortunately for my kids and grandchildren (if there are any), execution of the plan was piss-poor, and US Taxpayers get to foot the bill. Except it's not the present taxpayers holding the bill, it's the future ones.

I don't disagree but its not just Iraq. It's Medicare and Part D. Its Social Security and if Obama gets his way, univsersal health care and Pre-K too boot. Toss in taxpayers footing part of the college kiddies university tuition and we're simply digging the hole even deeper.

So yes I am opposed to tax increases because all it does it legitimize the Fed pissing away MY hard earned money. If it was earmarked to pay down the debt fine, if its simply going to funding someone's pre-K, health care or college tuition, fuck them. Get a damn job and pay your own way like I did.

Sorry for the rant but right now all I see is a tax and spend or spend and borrow party neither of which are good for America.

gophermomeh said...

MM - I'm with you on all counts, but two. I'm an offender on the grammer and Giuliani, I could care less about. Now Cindy - yeah, you know, she kind of creeps me out, too. Not too rational and not too kind, on my part, but...yikes.

Sloanasaurus said...

execution of the plan was piss-poor, and US Taxpayers get to foot the bill. Except it's not the present taxpayers holding the bill, it's the future ones.

I think you meant to say it's the future "wealthy" who will foot the bill.

vbspurs said...

Only to the NYT would there a "few" policy differences between Obama and Hillary, but almost none between "Maverick" McCain and "Nucular" Bush.

Great, thank you for weighing in, Grey Old Lady. Hope you are having fun with your nosediving subscriptions.

Cheers,
Victoria

Balfegor said...

That crafty NYTimes, endorsing the candidate they didn't want to win!

Krugman remains a Clinton partisan, I think. But the others appear -- like much of their party -- to have fallen out of love with the House of Clinton. Even if they endorsed her a few months ago.

Revenant said...

I think you meant to say it's the future "wealthy" who will foot the bill.

Exactly. When the government borrows a trillion dollars it is tempting to divide that by our 300 million population and say that each person's share is over three thousand dollars. But the median American only ends up being responsible for $25 of that -- and the bottom 45% or so of earners aren't responsible for any of it.

Then again, a lot of Americans view the incomes of "the rich" as public property. If the government blows rich people's money on a war, how can it blow rich people's money on socialized medicine?

chickenlittle said...

MM:
At the risk of sounding pedantic, or even worse, incorrect, there is nothing wrong with making "to grow" an action verb (I prefer transitive vs. intransitive).

As DBQ pointed out, people do grow things. Perhaps it's the metaphor you dislike- the notion of growing things like economies? What about government "seed money"?

Yet businesses do grow markets, and companies do grow businesses. Do you object to that too? If not, perhaps you're a closet conservative, believing that business but not governments can grow things economic.

I had a similar reaction to yours when I first heard "leverage" used as a verb ca. 1996, as in "leverage yourself".

Thorley Winston said...

fuck them. Get a damn job and pay your own way like I did

I would crawl through broken glass to vote for any candidate with the guts to publicly say that.

But as far as the candidates we do have – McCain voted against Medicare Part D and came out for means-testing Medicare. And he supports letting younger workers opt out of Social Security with a personal retirement account. In contrast the only thing we’ve heard from Obama and Clinton is that Medicare Part D wasn’t generous enough, they’re against means-testing or raising the retirement age, they won’t let younger workers opt out and Obama wants to raise FICA taxes.

On spending McCain is against ethanol subsidies (which aren’t just costly to taxpayers but they raise the price of our food, fuel, and feed) and Obama and Clinton are for them.

McCain’s against earmarks and won’t take them. Clinton and Obama, not so much.

McCain voted against expanding SCHIPS to cover adults and kids who already have private health insurance. Clinton and Obama wanted even more kids and adults (even if they were already covered) go on the dole. Which should give you a preview of what they plan for “health care reform.”

Speaking of health care, McCain has this crazy notion that consumers should be able to buy health insurance across State lines and pick a plan that covers the benefits that they want rather than the ones mandated by their State legislature. Clinton and Obama take a different tact and think that we should create a new national health insurance “exchange” that would start imposing mandated benefit requirements at the federal rather that State level thereby making health insurance even less affordable for the self-employed and those who work for smaller companies. Of course when health insurance becomes even less affordable then it is now for the people most likely to be without health insurance, they’ll be able to sign up for Obamacare/Hillarycare 2.0 at taxpayer expense.

So while McCain isn’t ideal he get its when it comes to entitlement programs, health care, and corporate welfare spending. Those are my three personal priorities when it comes to dealing with federal spending and McCain IMO – whatever his other perceived shortcomings – has simply been one of the best candidates we’ve had to date on addressing these issues.

blake said...

A shame about that first amendment, though.