The New York Times-20080126-The Endorsements- The Readers- Turn- -Letter-
Return to: The_New_York_Times-20080126
The Endorsements: The Readers' Turn; [Letter]
To the Editor:
Re Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton (editorial, Jan. 25):
You endorsed the wrong candidate. You are correct that Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama support similar policies. Yet you seemed to value Mrs. Clinton's experience more than Mr. Obama's ability to unite a polarized nation. This is a mistake.
Nothing is more important than re-establishing a strong and wide middle, a place where our common values and common sense can interact to effect the required change.
Although Mrs. Clinton may win the presidency, her unfounded attacks on Mr. Obama foreshadow similar tactics in the general election and during her time in office.
You endorsed a candidate of divisiveness over a candidate of unity, choosing the short term over the long, and narrow over the broad.
Kelly Kissock
Dayton, Ohio, Jan. 25, 2008
To the Editor:
I am disappointed, although not surprised, by your selection of Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain as your primary choices.
I understand that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain have been around a while (you call it experience), as has The New York Times. I, however, have not.
I am a 26-year-old independent-minded progressive voter. I am concerned about the millions of Americans without health care, the continuing global warming, our nation's diminished place in the world and the seemingly endless war in Iraq.
I support Senator Barack Obama, a choice that I can understand you lack the foresight (or courage) to make.
You may, of course, endorse whomever you wish, and I suspect that your choice will win the Democratic nomination. But when you wake up on the morning after Election Day wondering why all the independent voters chose Mr. McCain and all the young voters stayed home, don't blame us.
Jesse Laymon
Astoria, Queens, Jan. 25, 2008
To the Editor:
You write: 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. ... Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.
It would be unheard of for the board of governors of a corporation to select a chief executive without a proven record of accomplishments. The same holds true when electing a president of a country with more than 300 million people.
A president is the chief executive of the country. Thus your endorsement of Hillary Clinton is welcomed. That said, Barack Obama has great potential and would be an outstanding asset as a running mate for Senator Clinton should she get the nomination.
Paul Schoenbaum
Williamsburg, Va., Jan. 25, 2008
To the Editor:
You did not adequately address my biggest misgiving about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: she displays a disturbing willingness to morph her positions to suit the politics of the moment, most notably in her bandwagon vote authorizing the Iraq war.
Mrs. Clinton's explanations are grossly unsatisfactory. She is extraordinarily intelligent and knew perfectly well what that vote meant. But she took the easy route anyway.
True, the issue now is how the war will be ended, but the past is not irrelevant. Ending the war will require somebody willing to do what is painful and unpopular, a president for whom there are higher priorities than being president. That person is not Mrs. Clinton.
Those of us who support Senator Barack Obama are not merely drawn to some vague, rhetorical message of change.
We are drawn to the lucidity and common sense of his concrete ideas, and to the intellectual integrity that shows in their consistency over time.
Paul Cantrell
Minneapolis, Jan. 25, 2008
To the Editor:
Thank you for spelling it out with such crystalline clarity. I'm a liberal Democrat, surrounded by similar others who've been enthusiastic about Senator Barack Obama. I've said repeatedly that he's not ready to be president and leader of the free world. Probably in 10 years, but not now.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is tough, strong, smart and a mom. She's been called just about everything, but over time, who a person really is, inside, becomes transparent, no matter what she says or is said about her.
Senator Clinton has proved that she is warmhearted, honest and the best qualified over all. She will be able to accomplish the change Senator Obama has been so inspirational about.
The United States will be a better place after Mrs. Clinton is president. And she will restore our good standing in the world. I hope someday to see what a more seasoned Mr. Obama will do as president. Randall K. Jewell
Springboro, Ohio, Jan. 25, 2008
To the Editor:
I respectfully disagree with your endorsement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president. Simply stated, two families controlling the presidency for 24 to 28 consecutive years would not be in the best interest of this country.
Senator Barack Obama or former Senator John Edwards would bring new ideas and leadership to the White House. Mrs. Clinton would bring only leadership.
A fresh start doesn't begin with a former president. The Clintons had their chance and mostly did well, but it's time to move on. Mitchell Turker
Portland, Ore., Jan. 25, 2008
To the Editor:
I believe that your editorial support for John McCain as the Republican primary choice is a serious mistake (Primary Choices: John McCain, editorial, Jan. 25). He supports the most conservative aspects of the Republican right wing.
He is in favor of making permanent the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest; he is opposed to women's right to choose; he spoke out against torture of detainees, but quietly retreated when President Bush persisted with unlawful torture.
The most serious problem that Mr. McCain would present as president, however, is his determination to continue the war in Iraq until we reach some vague entity that he calls victory. He is a militarist. As president, he would be a menace, keeping us in an unwinnable, bloody, costly war without end.
Finally, we need Democratic control of the White House and Congress to undo the damage that President Bush has done to our country. Why should The New York Times endorse any Republican? Morton Wachspress
Pompton Plains, N.J., Jan. 25, 2008
[Illustration]DRAWING (DRAWING BY ZVEZDANA STOJMIROVIC)