Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Hillary - "Clearly, she's the wiser choice..."
Submitted by Nick Kelly on April 20, 2008 - 5:30pm.
Barack Obama | Foreign Policy | Hillary Clinton | Katrina | Pakistan | Democratic politics
Hillary calls Trib visit "counter-intuitive" but makes it clear she is happy to do it.
Hillary talks about Gulf Coast with Pittsburgh Trib revealing her many concerns with how the Bush administration mishandled the Katrina disaster.
Even her long-standing critics at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review say that Hillary
is extremely knowledgeable on crucial foreign issues. Meeting with Trib editors last month, she ticked off an impressive list of international challenges and the solutions. (In Wednesday's Philadelphia debate, Obama praised George H.W. Bush's foreign policy -- apparently not realizing that one of its architects was then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, a man he regularly excoriates.)
As we noted at the time of that meeting, Clinton's decision to sit down with the Trib was courageous, given our longstanding criticism of her. That is no small matter: Political courage is essential in a president. Clinton has demonstrated it; Obama has not.
Thanks to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review for their endorsement of Hillary, and for their several great videos of their meeting with Hillary, several of which are linked here.
UPDATE: Hillary on Pakistan is a good example of Hillary's excellent grasp of foreign policy.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15326
He has no lack of the sort of "courage" it takes to tell lies, as he has so often demonstrated:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15308
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
the Daily Pennsylvanian, a major independent student newspaper.
Hillary is the real uniter in this race, as these two endorsements demonstrate.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
especially independents, might have voted differently in the early primaries. That's something that SuperDs should consider. This UPenn student paper just had the fortune of making the decision post JW, bittergate, Ayers, Rezco, Khalidi and the wimpy debate performance.
not have voted so heavily for Obama if they had known what the people of Pennsylvania now know about him.
That's one of the reasons we have superdelegates, and not just a serial primary season. Superdelegates are supposed to sense and consider voting to reflect changes in voter sentiment that don't entirely offset the bandwagon effect of early momentum but are very likely to affect the outcome in November.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Contrast this well thought out endorsement in the Trib with the nauseatingly weak logic of the Philly Inquirer:
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/17840564.html
The Trib gets it.
Nick, I agree fully with your statement about changes in voter sentiment that will affect the outcome in November vis-a-vis the superdelegates.
because that Philly Inquirer "logic" was just what you said it was. :) Choke.
I'm also happy that KO asked Hillary about the unexpected Trib endorsement, and that she gave the greatest answer - proving that she is the real uniter, and believer in redemption.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
[S]he is extremely knowledgeable on crucial foreign issues. Meeting with Trib editors last month, she ticked off an impressive list of international challenges and the solutions. (In Wednesday's Philadelphia debate, Obama praised George H.W. Bush's foreign policy -- apparently not realizing that one of its architects was then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, a man he regularly excoriates.)
As we noted at the time of that meeting, Clinton's decision to sit down with the Trib was courageous, given our longstanding criticism of her. That is no small matter: Political courage is essential in a president. Clinton has demonstrated it; Obama has not. . .
Those who have endorsed Obama have rhetorically swooned, too, designating him the future of American politics, while denigrating Clinton as a relic of politics past.
How ironic, since Obama owes no small part of his success to the grooming and support of Chicago's old-line Daley political machine.
In policy terms, relatively little may separate these two. Obama ranks as one of the most liberal U.S. senators, but Clinton is no conservative. Determining how they differ is difficult, though, because Obama is long on soaring rhetoric yet painfully short on record. . .
Everyone utters stupidities now and then. Yet taken together and uttered repeatedly, they sound like a pattern of thought in the Obama household. It's a pattern the nation can't afford in the White House.
In sharp contrast, Clinton is far more experienced in government -- as an engaged first lady to a governor and a president, as a second-term senator in her own right.
She has a real voting record on key issues. Agree with her or not, you at least know where she stands instead of being forced to wonder. . .
She has a real record. He doesn't.
She has experience of value to a president. He doesn't.
Clearly, she's the wiser choice to represent Democrats this
fall.'
Clinton has demonstrated it; Obama has not."
Is this so difficult to comprehend?
Is the lack of political courage an integral part of the "change" BO is blowing in?
It's interesting this "change" might have been hatched and nurtured in good old Chicago in the company of Rezco, Ayers, Khalidi, JW and other good old boys.