|
The New York Times
Opinion
Primary Choices:
Hillary Clinton
EDITORIAL,
nytimes.com from the Web, January 25, 2008
This generally is the stage of a
campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever
candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not
remotely the case this year.
The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary
Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and
Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois.
The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand
of raw populism.
As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The
Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as
their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.
We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his
candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many
of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where
he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the
tide of globalization.
By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts.
The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is
exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee.
“Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has
been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to
which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to
changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.
On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They
promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective
government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil
liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl
Rove.
Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds
no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs.
Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk
about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we
are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her
intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.
It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but
any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be
commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her
years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has
won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She
would be a strong commander in chief.
Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing.
She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on
health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray
into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be
left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be
covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their
current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but
we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the
promise they hold, but also on the here and now.
The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences
and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he
understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership
and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need
more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a
clearer sense of how he would govern.
The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country
faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee.
The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require
concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs.
Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.
We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs.
Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s not the
issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only
more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already
thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to
contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave.
On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the
same course — shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans,
and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good
ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind education
program.
Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the
rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated
to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out
exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and
what must now be done to set things right.
As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in
changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the
Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part
because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called
permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are
feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he
continues this way.)
We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going
town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing
was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on
her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.
Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America’s voters.
She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won’t
be able to do it town by town.
When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be
a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she
could present herself as a leader to the nation.
Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new
openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding,
powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is
the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.
|
