The NY Times Endorses Hillary and McCain
In the NY Times today, there are endorsements for Hillary and McCain. I agree completely on McCain. He is the only republican candidate that I could even imagine voting for. I am still on the fence on Hillary and Obama. And may be until I walk into the booth on Feb 5th. They are such strong candidates and it bodes well for the democratic party that they have such great choices this year.
Comments (Archived):
Why is Obama a strong candidate? Because he speaks well? It’s not that i cannot vote for him unsure about his qualifications vs. other candidates.
I think you can look to his campaign and you’ll see that he’s built a great team, executed very well in the face of strong competition, he’s carved out a strong market position, and is staying on message and keeping his cool under a lot of pressureAll signs of a great leaderFred
I have to agree that Obama is a very strong candidate. He’s practically GLOWING with “change”….and “change” is what will shift independents in Florida and Ohio. I hope he beats Hillary, because I fear that if she’s the candidate, we’ll have another GOP-by-default outcome…which is good for no one.
McCain’s chances in ’08 = Bob Dole’s chances in ’96
I tend to agree. But he’s still the best republican for the jobFred
McCain’s only a ‘Republican’ b/c he’s been right on the war, judges, & (sometimes) Bush’s tax cuts….otherwise, he walks on the same side of the street as Ted Kennedy & Hillary.Fred, I know you’re obviously a lefty, but for a successful VC, why aren’t you more pro-Romney? DId someone from Bain take your lunch money once?
I don’t agree with Romney on anything. And he wasn’t a VC. He was a buyout guy.
I fear a return of Clinton 2 with their believe that the Fed Gov is a valid route to fix economioc issues without understanding the need for businesses, of all sizes, to grow.How do react to Larry Kuidlow’s view of the economy?
Larry Kudlow? I dont think he is worth the mention. I agree that he is a popular TV show host. But his economic theories are not that worth to mention. I used to like him in the beginning, but not anymore. As people started refuting his views with facts on his blog, he stopped allowing the comments!! I am not sure if there is any other reason that he gave. BTW, he endorsed Rudy for Republican IIRC.
The economy and businesses did great during clinton 1I don’t share that concern at allFred
Voting for Hillary makes sense. The problem is that, as Dave Winer has pointed out, you’re really voting for Bill & Hillary. That’s why her politics can be dishonest, as this woman explains: http://www.youtube.com/watc…
Shocking that the NY Times would endorse the most liberal/socialist of each party….the two most “established” Washington insiders, and two Senators (despite the fact that Senators don’t win Presidential elections)
Calling Hillary a liberal/socialist is laughable. I won’t even comment on McCain. Without a doubt, Hillary is one of the most conservative candidates to ever come out of a supposedly progressive party.
Andy, I don’t think you know what a socialist is. Clinton is a corporate democrat, the darling of the middle-monied-left. Her top “bundlers” are Alan Patricof (venture capitalist) and Mark Gorenberg (Venture Capitalist; might be wrong on Marc, but he raised 75 million for Kerry)I’m more liberal than Hillary, but I’m a capitalist. A liberal capitalist who believes in eliminating the trade deficit, eliminating the trade deficit and reducing federal debt, along with reducing government spending. Obama, Hillary, and Edwards are all capialists. And I’d take any one of them over the Republicans, not one of whom I would trust with the economy–the “borrow and spend” Republicans.
Guys…there is a big difference between calling someone a “liberal” or a “socialist” (which I did not do), and saying that they are the most liberal on the stage. Give me a break…..If someone says that Charles Barkley was one of the “shortest NBA forwards”, does that mean they are calling him short?The perception is that Hillary and McCain are further left than their opponents. The NYT editorial section loves that…they love washington insiders and they love senators. It’s a snooze of an endorsement that will change no one’s mind except for adept republicans who will now wonder what McCain has done to deserve such a thing.
Can you expand a bit on why McCain would be acceptable to you? I’ve long contended that I thought he (and possibly Rudy–I know your feelings on him) would be the only Reps who could appeal to the 4% in the middle or so.Just wondering, on what specifically, you make that statement.
John McCain was a champion of campaign finance reform. Maybe he still is. He’s a champion of immigration reform. He takes unpopular positions because they are the right thing to do. I don’t agree with him on Iraq or choice, but I think he’s a man of principal. Others have said on this blog that he isn’t. That he’s just like all the others in the race. But that’s not my gut feel on the guy. I hope that helps.
Greetings from St. Louis: Agreed on how nice it is to have strong candidates to choose from. I have only recently made my decision. Hillary has been planning this for 15 years now. That’s 15 years of experience that compared to Obama’s only recent history. I’m happy to vote for Obama in 2016 – but not in 2008.BTW – I’m hoping to be in NYC late next week, could you spare a few minutes for coffee?
Great news for the Dems that we have 3 strong candidates; I will enthusiastically support & vote for whichever emerges from the scrum. Would prefer Barak.And whichever of the Dems will ROMP in November. Imagine being one of the Reps and going to the country with a “I supported Iraq invasion & occupation” stance. You lose! Great moment in the debate last night when Russert asked each of them if that’s what they would go into the general election with — all of them save R Paul said yes. I respect McCain for principled stands on immigration, campaign finance and etc., but he is SO wrong on Iraq.PS great blog, thanks for the music tips.
Think of it this way, do you want someone like Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates running the country? I go for experience any day. I think Hillary is her own person, to describe her as Clinton 2 isn’t fair to her.
*Yawn*Newspaper endorsements are so irrelevant. I doubt this will cause a bump in anyone’s numbers. If anything the NYTimes endorsement may be the best indicator of who will LOSE the primaries and general election.
boggles my mind that the nyt would endorse mccain and fail to mention overtly his advocacy for the surge in iraq.the two leading democrats have made quite a debate out of judgment versus experience, and they’ve both specifically tied it to iraq.it’s always seemed to me that the best way to evaluate someone’s judgment is when they have the capacity to make choices in difficult times.mccain’s early steadfast support for the surge was viewed as a huge gamble. it’s clearly worked.at a mimimum, it’s disingenuous of the nyt to endorse without specifically calling that out. of course, given they’re democrat bent, i can see how that would put them in a bit of a strange situation regarding the candidates they’d back.this is only partly about iraq, in my mind. this is about judgment and courage in difficult times.global terror will continue to be the big kahuna for the next 8 years, not the subprime mess (not matter how many chicken little’s there are). it’d be nice to see folks see the litmus test for that being more than what the plan to get out of iraq to be.
Fred,Great post. That’s called a hedged answer. I found your answer typical to that of a lawyer or a vc. (not saying it’s good or bad). Your an educated guy in a high tax bracket. In a perfect world you want a republican in . But, you probably take some responsibility for voting for Bush and having “vote remorse” after this great country has regressed 20+ years, the dollar is weak, oil is >$90 barrel, Gold is >$900, the world is disgusted with our foreign policy, hundreds of employees of your portfolio companies will be without jobs when the layoffs come, the socio-economic issues were are facing….examples of lawyer and vc answers,”Well, yes it could be, but I’m not sure””Well, let me get back to you””Humm, yeah I see your point [pause no response]”Can I do that…. “we’ll yes and no”Where I agree is McCain is best from the republican side. But, I’m concerned that he may start tohave flashbacks to his days of being a POW in Vietnam and launch a payback campaign.Obama is smart and I really believe he wants to “change” things. But, admit it or not this country won’t vote in a African American for another 20+ years. Hillary is really smart and comes with Willie. Willie can get the US back on course by being the “international voice of reason”. Hillary will raise taxes but change will start to occur. (as much as I hate taxes I need to think about my children future)Best for USA = Hillary
Alex, I didn’t vote for Bush. And I don’t mind being in a high tax bracket. I don’t think i am hedging. Just thinking out loud.
A lot of folks have already had their say on this, but let me add my voice to those supporting Obama. While I think that Hillary would make a fine President in the right circumstances, I think she and Bill bring so much baggage (both fairly and unfairly) that she would have a difficult time governing effectively.The past 2 weeks has made this clear as day to me. If the Clintons can cause so much nasty infighting in their own party as they have since New Hampshire, how can we believe that she can possibly work across the aisle to get things done as President? And don’t forget, there is a huge portion of the country that will NEVER, ever accept the Clintons, even if they became warm and cuddly overnight. If we thought things were ugly in Washington in the last few years of Clinton I (i.e., the impeachment), they’re going to be even worse if Hillary wins.At the end of the day, I see Obama as the only candidate running right now (until and unless Bloomberg decides to enter) who has the ability to actually get things accomplished, which is something we need desperately. I don’t even care about the word “change” — I just want someone who is smart enough to look at the problems we face and to try to find a way to actually address them instead of playing party politics with everything.
Steve,Nice spin.1) Clinton has issues …… yup, he likes chicks2) Hillary is smart, BUT…. what does this mean?3) Obama has a 1 in 100 chance of winning because we have discrimination in these United States……. Actually, 1 in 1000 odds.4) Bush in completely incompetent, but he works well across the aisle……. PLEASE!5) Bloomberg? Are you kidding me! How many sexual lawsuits does he have that have been settled. He makes Billy look like a choir boy.6) You just want somebody that’s smart? what does this mean?The difference is I do care about the word “change”. Nice spin guy! Remember that most people reading this particular board are educated , eh. Here’s a question for you. Should a leader be challenged by his/her lieutenants? Or should a leader have a close mind and have his/her top advisors resign it they speak up.The Spin Zone!
Alex:Glad to see that the unnecessary personal attacks of the campaign have stretched their way down to the level of individual political discourse. Talk about spin — you somehow manage to completely distort my post and call me a liar, an idiot and a racist all in the space of 11 lines. I’m impressed.Steve
I like Mike Bloomberg and wish he could get elected President. But I don’t think he’ll run.
Steve – My comments were not meant as attacks. I apologize if that’s the way they case across. I was simply taking a utilitarian approach to the current situation we are faced.Fred – After reading my reply to your post it read like I was questioning your character. I apologize, as that was not my intention. If anyone has “vote remorse” it’s probably me.