Texas has now given every major newspaper endorsement in the state to Obama. The Ft. Worth Star Telegram today endorses Obama.
The Austin Statesman
The Dallas Morning News
El Paso Times
The Fort Worth Star Telegram
The Houston Chronicle
The San Antonio Express
From NBC/NJ's Carrie DannHe did it again.
Bill Clinton mentioned Ted Kennedy last night in Phoenix, Ariz., in reference to the "train wreck" of No Child Left Behind, as reported by NBC/NJ last night.
Today, at a rally in Clinton home state of Arkansas, he just repeated the same sentiment, perhaps a bit more strongly. He said that the education bill came about because "the president made a deal with Senator Kennedy."
Of course, it wouldn't be Bill without a spoonful of sugar. He added, "Neither one of them meant to mess it up."
Then a long riff on why it failed.
Event in progress...
*** UPDATE *** It is worth noting that Hillary Clinton voted for No Child Left Behind.
Hillary Clinton in the congressional record, Dec 18, 2001, p. S13417, before voting for no child left behind:
"I thank our chairman for his extraordinary work...We know this bill is far from perfect. However, we know we have made a step forward.....We will receive a 25 percent increase in title I funds and a 40 percent increase in teacher quality funds....I am glad we have taken this step forward."
I can't describe the disillusionment I feel from reading the Times endorsement of Clinton. The primary reason was her 'experience' which the editorial failed to delineate. Further, the editorial made clear that the divisiveness of the Clintons would have to end in order to not damage the Democratic Party. With that, it basically stated that there was not much difference with the Obama campaign and gave much credit to Obama for his call for unity and the inspiration he has brought to the race. I quickly looked at the members of the editoroial board and learned that there are members of that board who served in the Clinton administration. It was a sad discovery.
But most insulting is the timing of the editorial. Although clothed in the purpose of coming before the February 5th voting states, it was released a week before the Sunday, the normal publishing time, preceding those primaries/caucuses. Clearly, this looks like an attempt to influence South Carolina, seemingly at the bidding of the Clinton campaign. I don't know how to express the sadness in seeing the political manuevering of a once great paper. I just don't see much difference from the political manipulations that we've seen from the Bush administration and those institutions that have supported that corrupt administration.
Turned off in Austin
