The New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton in its editorial pages yesterday. As the writer for the newspaper noted, Obama and Clinton have very similar views on issues of foreign and domestic policy. The race is not between conflicting policies, but between persons. The newspaper acknowledged Obama's strengths, and Clinton's weaknesses. The editorial encouraged Ms. Clinton to change the sometimes harsh tone of her campaign, to be more of a uniter and less of a divider.
But for the Times, the decisive issue is Hillary Clinton's "abiding, powerful intellect," and the depth of her knowledge and experience.
Well, gosh, if the New York Times can endorse candidates, why can't the Northwest Corner?
I agree with virtually everything stated in the fair and thoughtful Times editorial. I think either candidate would be an excellent president. But the critical factor not mentioned by the Times is "electability."
Obama inspires enthusiasm across a wide spectrum of Democrats and independents. Even some Republicans have tempting thoughts of jumping party lines in November. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, faces the undying hostility of a significant fraction of the voters. This hostility is unfair. It's based on nothing rational. Her opponents can't explain their hatred of Ms. Clinton, at least in terms that make any sense to a rational listener. Fear of strong women probably plays some part in this hostility, but is not the only factor. Many of her detractors would have had no difficulty in voting for Margaret Thatcher.
In any event, nothing that Clinton can do will win these voters over between now and November. They are beyond logical argument, and Hillary can't turn herself into Laura Bush, if that's what it would take. If we subtract the Hillary-haters, what's left? Are there enough swing voters so eager to punish the Republicans for the misrule of the past eight years that they will vote for Hillary over any Republican candidate? A Republican candidate who even some Democrats find attractive, such as John McCain?
I don't know. And I'm not willing to gamble. Unless there develops a mob of anti-black, anti-Obama voters that is every bit as large and rabid as the gang of anti-Hillary haters -- in which case, this country is really in trouble -- I'll support Obama because (1) he will make a strong president, and (2) he can win.
I plan to vote for Barack Obama in the Washington caucuses on February 9.
--------------------NOTE (1-27-08): In this morning's edition, the Seattle Times endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination.
2 comments:
I have two major problems with Obama:
First, when he does those grand inspirational speeches, he doesn't really say anything. He comes up with eloquent ways of saying, "I want change", and "I want bipartisanship", but he doesn't address any particular issues. And he seems rather sophomoric to me next to Clinton at the debates.
Second, he lacks the experience. I understand the appeal to some people of having someone who is inexperienced (he's, perhaps, less corrupted by the politics of money and quid pro quo). But that positive side of lack of experience wouldn't last long in the White House, and the negative side would manifest itself in everything he'd do. This upcoming presidency is critical for Democrats, and I personally think we need someone who knows the ropes.
Completely valid factors to consider. I did think about them, and still came to a different conclusion from yours.
But the New York Times felt the same as you. So you're in pretty decent company! :-)
Post a Comment