NYT endorses Hillary Clinton in New York Democratic primary

[DeepModem Mom]

Editorial
A Senate Primary in New York
Published: September 3, 2006

....If Democrats turned on Senator Joseph Lieberman because of his support for the war in Iraq, why shouldn’t they do the same to Mrs. Clinton, who also has refused to express regret for her vote to authorize the invasion?

This page recommended voting for Ned Lamont over Mr. Lieberman in the primary. Today — not to prolong the suspense — we’re endorsing Mrs. Clinton. It seems like an excellent time to discuss her record on the war.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Lieberman have behaved very differently on the Iraq issue from the beginning. In 2002, Mr. Lieberman stood next to President Bush in the Rose Garden when he announced an agreement on a resolution to authorize use of force. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, urged that the resolution be regarded not as a go-ahead to invade, but as leverage in negotiations with the United Nations. She argued in the Senate debate that the president should work to get strong United Nations backing for a demand that Saddam Hussein allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq. If that failed, she said, the United States’ effort would still win it international support for an invasion later....(A)s the conflict went on, she became increasingly critical of the way it was being conducted. Mr. Lieberman not only defended it, he also chastised other Democrats for criticizing the president during a time of war. A few months ago, Mrs. Clinton joined most Senate Democrats in supporting a resolution that called for American forces to begin leaving Iraq this year, without setting a specific deadline for withdrawal. Mr. Lieberman opposed the resolution and spoke out against it in the Senate....

***

All that said, she has hardly been a profile in courage. Almost every move Mrs. Clinton has made regarding Iraq reflected her desire to find — or create — a center position on every issue....Mrs. Clinton’s biggest flaw is her unwillingness to risk political capital for principle. That is not to say that she lacks principles, but whenever her moral convictions become politically inexpedient, she will struggle to find a way to cloak them in vague rhetoric or deflect attention with a compromise that makes the danger go away.

All that is an issue of leadership, and it will be grist for discussion if she decides to run for president in 2008. Right now we are talking about a Senate race, and Hillary Clinton has been an excellent senator for New York....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/opinion/03sun1.html?hp

[countmyvote4real]

1. Jonathan Tasini is the unnamed candidate to support.

Of course, he can’t win the primary. He doesn’t have the cash stash from the likes of Rupert Murdoch and he’s not even named in this article. However, I can only hope that every vote for Tasini will be a bell to nudge Senator Clinton towards acknowledging the truth about the continued occupation of Iraq and many other issues.

New York primary voters please consider Tasini.

http://www.tasinifornewyork.org/

[DeepModem Mom]

2. I focused my excerpts on HRC; here are the comments on Mr. Tasini:

"The Democratic primary for senator in New York, which pits Hillary Clinton against an antiwar candidate, Jonathan Tasini, is not shaping up as a nail-biter. Mrs. Clinton has one of the best-known names on the planet, far more campaign money than she needs and an enormous lead in the polls. Mr. Tasini has a lot of spunk....Mr. Tasini, a labor leader who once successfully sued The Times on behalf of freelance writers, is the politically impractical candidate from the left that many commentators incorrectly imagined Ned Lamont to be when he challenged Mr. Lieberman in Connecticut. Mr. Tasini deserves credit for making the run and we are sorry that Mrs. Clinton did not respond to his demands for a debate. But it is hard to imagine him working well in a large body of egotistic and generally conservative politicians."

Thanks for your post on behalf of the other candidate in this race.

[Sam Odom]

3. I'm shocked ! I swear I'm SHOCKED n/t

n/t

[WePurrsevere]

4. Very good & factual editorial. From what I've heard up here in NNY Hillary

is fairly well respected by not only Democrats but die hard (Ike) Republicans although that's partly because she actually knows where NNY is and comes up here fairly regularly to hear what folks have to say and help where she can.

As the Times points out she's not truly "pro-war". What it fails to point out is the fact that her voting record is mostly Progressive and not as moderate or centrists they seem to imply. (ex: Hillary's score at Progressive Punch is 91.54. (Compare that to Lieberman's 76.41; Feingold's 89.19 and Kerry's 86.37.)

She may be lacking her husband's charisma and I do feel she needs to stop playing it quite so safe but but she's far from being the "DINO" or "neo-con" that she's so often painted to be.

[Major Hogwash]

5. Wow, that was a gutsy call. Hahahaha.

What kind of lead does she have now - 20 points ahead?

Man, the New York Times ain't what she used to be.

[malikstein]

6. If she's good enough for Murdoch,

she's good enough for the Times.

[Stephanie]

7. Hillary Clinton, "Not Quite as Bad as Lieberman"

Also, "Plays Well With Republicans"

Thanks NY Times, for reminding me why I no longer subscribe.

[karynnj]

8. What they neglect to say is that she failed to speak out when Bush invaded

The reason for her IWR vote is the one that Bill Clinton gave a few weeks ago as the reason Democrats, other than Lieberman, voted for the resolution. Where were the Clintons in February and March 2003? Kerry, who did in his Senate speech gave this reason, spoke out in that time frame demanding that Bush not rush to war and give diplomacy and inspections more time. The Clintons were silent, likley because the war polled at about 70% after invasion. Also, why did Bill Clinton in interviews in 2003 and 2004 refuse to take a stand this stong? Why didn't Hillary sign Kerry letters to demand the phase 2 investigation into the WMD lies?

More importantly - why did the NYT question this as Kerry's position in 2004? Why didn't Bill Clinton make that statement then - when Kerry was saying the same thing day in and day out? This was the right thing for Kerry, the Clintons and the NYT to have said in 2004 - making it clear that the main decision point to go to war was NOT October 2002, but March 2003. It was Bush's war! Of the 3, only Kerry said that in 2004.

What is clear is that this is the Clintons and the NYT re-defining where Hillary was i 2002-2003. What's next, Hillary putting out an Iraq plan that will look like Kerry/Feingold (or Levin's), but which the media will see as new and fresh and proof she should be President?