OT: NYT endorses Hillary

[karynnj]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2808690

What is more on topic is that it essentially assigns to Hillary the reason for the IWR vote that they spent most of 2004 raising questions about when Kerry consistently argued it was his position. That Kerry spoke out in 2003 when Bush invaded and the war was polling at 70% approval and the Clintons didn't was apparently not noticed by them. This is disturbing as the media seems to have already allowed Edwards to slide his even more pro-war attitude to this. I hope they don't plan to portray Kerry - who was not pro-war, as more pro-war than them.

[JI7]

1. i get so disgusted with this

reminds me of CNN saying Chris Shays was rising above politics by going against Bush and calling for withdrawal. even though he is doing it just as he is being challenged and is at risk to lose his seat.

yet they always called Kerry a flip flopper even though he had a consistent position from the start.

i really hate the large media and the phonies on the blogosphere.

[TayTay]

2. Actually, I think this is progress

Lieberman did more than any Democrat to undermine the Biden-Lugar Amendment in 2002, that called for a tougher process and more accountability for the Admin over it's plans for war. It was Lieberman who went to Bush and gave him the veneer of bipartisanship for waging the war. Biden-Lugar was dead after that. (You can't pin this off on any other Dem, it was Lieberman, and later Gephart and Daschle who knifed the Democratic opposition on this.)

Remember this exchange from that thoughtful piece in HuffPo:

"Then doesn't this suggest," I asked, "that this 'Rose Garden' moment with Lieberman was the real turning point? It was the moment when war became inevitable. From then on, you - and Daschle, Biden, Harkin - were out of options. And you were in an untenable situation going forward into the election."

"You can look at it that way," he (Kerry) answered, "but if there's one thing I want to emphasize, it's that we need to stay focused on now. What do we do now? How do we stop more soldiers from dying? That's what my resolution does - it sets some dates for bringing an end to this conflict. That's what I'm all about these days."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/kerry-calls-to-respond-_b_18844.html?p=2

I think Hillary Clinton needs to move into 'the now' as strongly speak about what she wants to do going forward. This is what Sen. Kerry has done. She is still saying that the Iraq War was a bad idea and that it was badly executed but that we need to stick with it for now. That's not tenable for 2006 or any time thereafter. This isn't just about a presidential race, it's about our kids dying in a war without apparent end, or goals at this point. On that point, she needs to be held highly accountable.