While the New York Post is generally no friend to liberal politics and I often disagree with its editorial views, in its endorsement it hits upon precisely what I see to be the issues as to why Hillary Clinton should NOT be the Democrat nominee. The Posts views pretty much mirror my own whether Hillary fully deserves all the criticisms or not. Here are highlights from the Post (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/01302008/postopinion/editorials/post_endorses_barack_obama_813218.htm):
We urge them to choose Obama - an untried candidate, to be sure, but preferable to the junior senator from New York. Obama represents a fresh start. His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency. Does America really want to go through all that once again?
It will - if Sen. Clinton becomes president. That much has become painfully apparent. Bill Clinton's thuggishly self-centered campaign antics conjure so many bad, sad memories that it's hard to know where to begin. Suffice it to say that his Peck's-Bad-Boy smirk - the Clinton trademark - wore thin a very long time ago. Far more to the point, Sen. Clinton could have reined him in at any time. But she chose not to - which tells the nation all it needs to know about what a Clinton II presidency would be like.
Now, Obama is not without flaws. And, again, he is not Team Clinton. That counts for a very great deal. A return to Sen. Clinton's cattle-futures deal, Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, the Lincoln Bedroom Fire Sale, Pardongate - and the inevitable replay of the Monica Mess? No, thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment