Organizing for America | Losing Sleep For Obama and America: Response to New York Times Hillar-ity Endorsement.

Post from Losing Sleep For Obama and America:

Response to New York Times Hillar-ity Endorsement.

By Todd In SC ("What does a VP actually do?" - S.P. a month ago) - Jan 25th, 2008 at 3:50 am EST

Also listed in: 6 groups

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Dear Editorial Board of the New York Times,

I’m saddened to learn of your endorsement of Hillary Denise Rodham Clinton for the Presidential Primaries. You like so many other Americans have not done enough homework before deciding upon a candidate. You're blinded by the success of Bill Clinton's presidency and blindly assumed that Hillary would offer the same leadership.

Let's review the issues where you feel that Hillary is better suited for the role:

1. You praise Hillary for her experience. She states that she has "35 years of experience" however she has only been an Elected Official for seven years. Any work done before that was when she was Appointed to positions by her spouse, and real politician, Bill Clinton. Obama has MORE years of experience because he served eight years, as an elected official, in the Illinois state senate, and going on four years in the US Senate. To state that Hillary has more experience is simply DEAD WRONG! If you're county her work as First Lady and Governors wife, then does that mean that my wife can do my job "on day one", or your wife's can do your job?

2. You mention that Hillary would be a strong commander in chief because of her involvement in the Senate and how she's won the respect of world leaders. This is subjective. You have NO IDEA about the opinion of Hillary by the World Leaders. What you do know is that they respect Bill Clinton but he is not, or should not be, the one running for President. Obama is not a tarnished politician, and within five minutes can win MORE respect from world leaders than Hillary can try to conjure over her "35 years of experience". Did you not learn that Obama was on the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the committees for Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs AND Veterans' Affairs? Have you even visited www.BarackObama.com or watched any of his speeches or has the New York media completely shut off anything that isn't produced between the Hudson and Long Island?

3. Regarding Health Care you feel that Hillary's second attempt will be more successful. How on earth do you think she's going to be able to unite enough people to get behind her this time? Don't you realize that it will be the Health Care Industries second time to fight her on this too? They already know how to defeat her on this topic, or pay her off.

You also state in this section that "Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not seen it". Here's an idea... open up a web browser, turn on the TV to a non-local station, or heaven forbid, read another newspaper (gasp!). Obama has the better plan here. At my job my employer pays for top notch health care. I have zero dollar co-pay. I have a wife with Multiple Sclerosis who is in a wheel chair. We run up some $30,000 to $60,000 of medical bills every year and I DON'T PAY A DIME! My health insurance is THAT good. Under Hillary's plan I would (as well as the 50,000+ employees at my company) have to pay for Health care, regardless if I don't want to. Obama is the one proposing a plan that offers Americans more choices yet still covers everyone that needs it.

4. You also state that you need a clearer sense of how Obama would govern....

Do you have that much clarity of how Hillary would govern or are you just basing your decision on how Bill Clinton governed? Obama would unite congress, inspire Americans, and mend relationships with foreign Nations. He'd tackle all the hard issues because being uncomfortable is when we grow.

5. In the next paragraph you continue to regurgitate the sentiment of the Clinton campaign, that she'd be ready on "Day One". Really? Has anyone asked her what she would do the first seven days of her presidency? Does she have a scheduled outline, hour by hour for "DAY 1"? No! She has her agendas of what she wants to tackle just like Obama has his agenda. The difference is that you can be sure that Obama will make wiser and quicker decisions. We can't wait for Hillary to talk with all her Advisors and Speech Writers before she can answer a question. Everyone in Washington was given the same data on Iraq and given the same time frame from which to make their decision to go to war, and Barack Obama made the RIGHT choice the FIRST time! He didn't have to learn from a mistake first.

6. You then go on to talk about how Mrs. Rodham (this is the name she really wants to use) is "more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdraw (from Iraq), but is thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq's chaos after American troops leave". This is another oversight by the Editorial Board of the New York Times! If you watched the South Carolina debates this week you would have heard, if you were listening, that Clinton promises to get all our troops out in one year. This is a statement of fact by Hillary. This is a careless timeline and a statement made by an UN-AWARE candidate.

Obama has the foresight to understand that there may, and probably will be, complications as we continue to dwindle the military from Iraq. Obama stated that he wants to be "as careful about leaving Iraq, as we were careless about going into Iraq". He is the ONLY Democratic Candidate that didn't say he'd get all forces out within one calendar year. He has a more focused approach to this issue where he's considered all possible complications. Hillary is the one making broad and un-realistic goals which can only be considered as statements by someone who would say anything to win the nomination.

7. Regarding the No Child Left Behind program you completely omit Obama's plan on this issue. You only opinion that Hillary has good ideas about fixing it. I'm not sure if your Google search found this but here is the link you were looking for http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/

I'm fearful of how strong of an effect your endorsement will have on the people of New York city and elsewhere. It's my opinion that you did not take the time to learn enough about all the candidates before making your decision. Perhaps your Chief Editor keeps you so busy that you didn't have time to do all of your homework.

One topic you forgot to even talk about was her electability. Have you even researched if she would even be able to beat the Republican candidates? Here's another site that you have missed during your assessment of the candidates for your endorsement: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html. It's clear that Obama has the best chance of getting the Democrats back in office.

Do you really think that she will be able to court the Obama supporters after smothering him with false and distorted claims? Even if Obama kindly concedes and sends his delegates to Hillary I can guarantee that less than half of those supporters will actually follow that advice and vote for Hillary. They'd rather write-in "Barack Obama" on the ballot than select that button. The Republicans have so much ammunition lined up to take her down in the general election. Having Hillary as the Democratic nominee will invigorate the Republican party and their supporters. There will be more of an urgency for the Republicans to stop polishing their gold and go out and vote against her. She can NOT win in November!

Hillary will run a Bush-style presidency but it will only be on the left side. She will be Bill Clintons puppet. She will NOT unify the country as you've suggested, so NOTHING will get done of any considerable change. We need to stop this nepotism in the White House! I as well as millions of other Americans are SICK of it! What's next then Jed Bush? Probably. Enough is enough already. Let's put someone in office who wants to change America for the better, not be President just to be President.

I live in South Carolina and I will be voting in this Saturday's primary. I'll be voting for Obama. When Obama wins by over 15% including most of the White, Black and Latino votes, what will your newspaper do then?

I hope that this email helped clear up some issues for you, only there's never been a newspaper in history that has successfully retracted an endorsement :(

Cheers and thanks for NOTHING

-Todd from South Carolina

Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

Thank you, Todd! | Report to Admin

By TK in the UK Jan 26th 2008 at 9:43 am EST

Todd, you speak for many of us who, unfortunately, cannot be in South Carolina today.

The New York Times Editorial Board has brought shame on an institution.

The paper can add mine to what doubtless will be a growing list of cancelled subscriptions.

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.