| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: NYT Endorses Clinton and McCain |
Topic: NYT Endorses Clinton and McCain
| Author | Message |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 1/25/2008 12:09:35 AM | show profile Gotta agree with them, at this moment those would be my top two choices for party candidates. Although I'd be happy to see Obama win the nomination too. And God, I hope a Democrat wins the presidency, despite the impossible job that it will be. |
| JCB | Posted – 1/25/2008 2:32:21 AM | show profile What are the odds Hillary would pick Obama as a running mate? Or is there too much bad blood? Reagan picked Bush Sr. even after the latter had labeled Reagan's economic views "voodoo economics" during the primaries. But I don't know if I can see Obama and Hillary working well together... |
| chucho | Posted – 1/25/2008 6:04:55 AM | show profile I'll vote for whomever wins on the Dem side. But Hillary is not my favorite. As John Edwards pointed out in the debate (when Wolf Blitzer, that schmuck, anointed him a rare opportunity to speak) that Edwards and Obama both have proposed raising the ceiling on FICA-taxable income while Hillary Clinton does not. Edwards -- despite his goofy accent -- seems to have won that debate. What's Hillary's point harping on the Reagan thing? That Obama is secretly a Reganite Republican? And I liked how Obama smacked her down by saying that while she was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart in the 80s he was fighting Reganomics (or as Ilike to call it "Bidet-onomics" water trickling down the asses of the rich for the rest of us to fight over the skanky droplets) on the streets of Chicago. |
| chucho | Posted – 1/25/2008 6:07:51 AM | show profile PS: Wouldn't it be wonderful if the token 22 Percenters on this board started their own thread actually criticizing any of their candidates? That 's what makes our WESTERN LIBERAL DEMOCRACY so great -- we aren't goose stepping behind whomever "The Party" anoints as the golden child. Liberals tend to self-criticize, which is what makes America so fascinating -- the Republican-style goose-march is so "Old School", very "Italian Socialist" IMO :) |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 1/25/2008 10:49:23 AM | show profile I would have been happy with Edwards too, but I guess I'm considering him out of the running at this point. I don't like everything Hillary Clinton does or says, but given the enormous problems we have I think she'll have a better chance of doing better (or not getting terribly beat up in the process), and I think she's a little more aggressive on health care than Obama. But Obama makes me feel better... my heart says Obama my brain says Clinton. The NYT destroyed Giuliani. He really is out of it at this point, thank God! |
| ellen11 | Posted – 1/25/2008 11:14:49 AM | show profile Not that it matters, but Michelle Obama served on the Board of Wal-mart. She resigned as soon as her husband decided to run for president. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 1/25/2008 11:48:44 AM | show profile My gut feeling is that if Clinton wins the nomination, she'd love to have Obama on the ticket with her but there may be too much bad blood. |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 1/25/2008 12:02:17 PM | show profile I don't think Hillary would pick Obama as a running mate... just don't see their campaigns meshing together well. |
| catlondon | Posted – 1/25/2008 12:40:55 PM | show profile The word from my friends who work for both Clinton and Obama, is that the Dems will try hard to stay away from a woman/black man ticket, in any configuration--too risky. I'm sorry people aren't listening more to Edwards. I don't know if he could be viable VP again or not, but his ideas deserve more attention. |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 1/25/2008 12:51:18 PM | show profile I'm still praying for Joe Biden as VP. He might be a possibilty if Obama gets the nom. |
| catlondon | Posted – 1/25/2008 1:05:49 PM | show profile I was thinking either Biden or Dodd would be good choices. |
| newyorker | Posted – 1/25/2008 2:57:02 PM | show profile Biden would be great as VP or Sec. of State. But the chances of him getting picked for VP are low. Since both Clinton and Obama are from Northern states, they are more likely to pick a Southern candidate for VP....Edwards perhaps? |
| mentat | Posted – 1/25/2008 3:13:24 PM | show profile How is Hillary selling herself as a "change" candidate? What a load of snake oil. Does she really think that if she takes the White House the Republicans are just gonna roll over and play nice? Hell no. It'll be all-out war, and it'll be the late '90s all over again, especially with out-of-control Bill running amok. What are people thinking? Yeah, she's smart as hell, but that and 2 bucks'll get you on the subway. If she's embattled on the home front every step of the way (and the Republicans are as zealous as al Qaeda in their hatred of her), let's just see how far she gets on any part of her agenda. I'll say again, what are people THINKING? |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 1/25/2008 3:31:18 PM | show profile If the Dems are tone-deaf enough to pick Billary, they. will. lose. Doesn't really matter who the GOP would pick, though McCain is probably their best shot. The Dem best bet was Edwards, but he's too outspoken for the powers that be, so the media has quickly shuttled him to the sidelines. |
| mentat | Posted – 1/25/2008 4:01:28 PM | show profile It just shows that the public will never learn. They have been mesmerized by Billary from the start (inexplicably), and they're all piling onto the bandwagon once again. Steinem wrote that sob-story NYT op-ed piece the morning of the New Hampshire primary and that was it: Once again, she was the Golden Girl. Amazing. |
| jazzreport | Posted – 1/25/2008 4:20:09 PM | show profile Since the 21 percenters are criticizing some of their candidates i will do the same for mine. I have no love for McCain. I would vote for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr before i would vote for John McCain. That said i don't believe Hillary,John, or Obama will get elected. Neither really impress me on foreign policy ... Can't get much worse i guess I do agree with you on this point.The next President will be in a no win situation. No grace periods or honeymoon. I hope to have a spilt government. I don't want to see 1 party control all of government. |
| nellie bly | Posted – 1/25/2008 5:18:57 PM | show profile McCain vs Clinton would be a real contest. I suppose many Independents as well as the Clinton haters will go with McCain or sit out the election. Yet I wonder if (and when) Bloomberg is going to jump in... what's really striking about the Times' McCain endorsement is what they have to say about Mayor Meanie Giuliani. I really don't care who wins on SuperTuesday and where as long as Rudy loses big in Florida and California and New York. "The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square. "Mr. Giuliani?s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn?t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges. The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city?s and the country?s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign." |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 1/25/2008 6:06:02 PM | show profile The thing is that Rudy's exploitation of 9/11 has been a GOP campaign standard for the past 6 years. Maybe Americans are finally getting tired of it. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 1/25/2008 11:46:33 PM | show profile jazzreport (not the REAL one I know), formerly olby, formerly liberalhater, formerly .... I actually agree with you on one thing, that usually the government does better when it is not controlled by just one party. But it looks like there is a good chance the Democratic party will have it all this time around. Please God don't let them screw it up the way the GOP did when they had all the power (of course, how much more can you screw up a sinking ship???). |
| joyeuxnoelle | Posted – 1/27/2008 4:45:10 AM | show profile not surprised It's been obvious to me for quite awhile that the NYT was supporting Hillary. Just look at all the warm fuzzy photos they always run of the Clintons, even if the story has a negative tinge. Obama's photos never seemed to load properly... I've been observing this for weeks. |
| JCB | Posted – 1/28/2008 1:30:55 PM | show profile I've noticed that slant during past elections as well. The NYT definitely plays favorites, especially when it comes to choosing photos of candidates. They're so in Hillary's pocket. Wonder if they're a bit red-faced about Ted and Caroline Kennedy's endorsements of Obama. |
| JCB | Posted – 1/28/2008 1:30:57 PM | show profile I've noticed that slant during past elections as well. The NYT definitely plays favorites, especially when it comes to choosing photos of candidates. They're so in Hillary's pocket. Wonder if they're a bit red-faced about Ted and Caroline Kennedy's endorsements of Obama. |
| joyeuxnoelle | Posted – 1/29/2008 6:59:40 AM | show profile I'm glad I'm not the only ones who noticed this. I'll bet the Kennedys endorsement left lots of people feeling redfaced. |
