Are you kidding? How is this in anyway "lukewarm" (from the NY times endorsement,word for word): "...Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America???s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience." Is "hugely impressed" typically used by people who are "lukewarm" about someone? I don't see it as lukewarm, it's well thought through and explained, unlike the Boston Globe, which read like a campaign ad for Obama, except for one statement about senator clinton's experience and knoweldge being "...deep and reassuring." Which, by the way, is what America needs Most right now.
Thank you, NY Times. Nothing lukewarm there, just well explained.
"Right now" is an important point-I wouldn't remodel my house in the middle of winter...we need stability and restoration before anyone can effectively launch truly progressive
changes. Hillary Clinton can restore our country, and that's what we need, right now!

Sent by Penelope Snow | 12:17 PM ET | 01-25-2008

I humbly suggest actually reading an editorial endorsement before commenting on it.

The NYTimes endorsement "strongly recommends" Hillary Clinton.

She "has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief."

She "seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq???s chaos after American troops leave."

The call for her to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign is prefaced with "As strongly as we back her candidacy."

She was a "great senator" with a "powerful intellect" who "won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises."

Yes, Obama is also praised, but the criticisms are far more prevalent in his case.

Nowhere in the endorsement does the Times state or imply that it was a "split decision" or even a difficult decision.

Calling this endorsement "lukewarm" is simply outrageous.

Sent by seufet | 12:39 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Yes - you seem so biased! Is this a personal, editorial blog?

Is there no objective main NPR blog?

I have been astounded by your bias! You could not be more mistaken!

They could not have endorsed her more strongly!

Sent by Lauren | 2:25 PM ET | 01-25-2008

I did note the underwhelming or "lukewarm" sensibilities of the endorsements as well. Yes, there were glowing words and (seemingly) uncontested enthusiasm, but I also felt the NYT piece was flat, affectless, uninspiring, and a sad demonstration of the paper's inability to look for new alternatives. Especially on the Democratic side: they simply took the safe bet and chose the establishment candidate from New York.

If their endorsements prove prescient, and Clinton is ultimately paired against McCain, there is no doubt in my mind that she will lose. And badly.

She and the First Man, I guess that's what we'll call Bill, (but perhaps surrogate VP works better) have already split the Democratic party with their nasty Rovian tactics. The Republicans are too disciplined to not support a fellow member, and Independents, moderate Republicans, and conservative Democrats will also reject her.

She is incredibly talented but terribly polarizing. These are the facts and they won't change in November.

Sent by Nicole | 2:32 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Penelope, Seufet, and anyone else supporting Mrs. Clinton:
You may as well vote for Mitt Romney if you want to maintain and strengthen the US plutocracy.

Sent by Boris Zilberman | 2:33 PM ET | 01-25-2008

What about Ron Paul? It really bothers me that the NYT totally neglects Ron Paul. Not even one sentence... Clearly the editors are threatened by anti-war politicians that aren't Democrats. They want to paint a picture in which Democrats are the only people critical of the war, and therefore the only reasonable people. I can understand picking McCain over Paul, but at least explain yourself.

Sent by Seth | 2:42 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Obama has no chance of winning against John Mc Cain!

Most people will always vote for the security of proven experience.

They won't feel confident in having a rookie try to run the country a such an important time! No way! No matter what he "says."

The majority of the country would not vote for Obama because he has no proven experience governing, and they wouldn't have enough confidence in him!

Some people are hyper-critical of Hillary as a habit they've developed, and they cannot see the truth of how incredibly caring, intelligent, and competent she is!

Watch her in the debates! She's incredibly intelligent and competent!

If you truly look and open your biased-eyes, you will see the truth as the New York Times has!

The Clintons have always been about hope, change, and unifying the country.
And they truly delivered it in the 1990's to the majority of Americans.

The Republicans attacked them incessantly, trying to smear them and divide the country, but that wasn't the Clintons' fault!

And there are lots of Republicans who will be no kinder to Obama.

Obama is not prepared. You can see it in the debates. He doesn't really know what he's talking about too much of the time. He needs more experience.

"Fresh" is not at all as important as experience and competence!

Have you learned nothing from the last 7 years?

Sent by Lauren | 3:10 PM ET | 01-25-2008

NY times knows Guliani wont make it, so they d endorse him.
NYT endorsed 2 war-mongors McCain & Clinton.its a win win for NYT.
wait for the NYT to start attacking Obama .

Sent by resimc | 4:06 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Hillary's charm is so completely lost on me, I find it shocking to see the above posts purporting to be excited by her.

Given my hopes for this country I think it would be a complete disaster to have a nominee with no leadership abilities, no charisma and no personal integrity, but even aside from that I think HC has a polarizing effect on too many people on all sides of the political spectrum, and for that reason is completely unelectable, regardless of whatever theoretical "competence" she may have (defining competence in a low worker bee kind of way). If nominated I think she would lose because of her polarizing and unlikeable personality (her patronizing attitude, her mean-spirited nature, her arrogance that she is entitled to be the next president and her willingness to take down the party to get there) and even I, a democrat, would be tempted to find a vote elsewhere.

Sent by Heather Wayland | 4:11 PM ET | 01-25-2008

If divisiveness is what the New York Times and the rest of this country want, that's what we'll get with a Hillary Clinton presidency. They should have insisted that the Democratic candidates tone down the rhetoric and heal the emerging rifts before making the endorsement.

The latest heirs to the Bush/Clinton thrown claimed to have a unique ability to unite this country. As unique as the emperors new clothes.

They???ve also been known to say that America needs a strong, experienced leader in the White House in this challenging time (footnote, when is "now" not a critical time). Raise your hand if your glad we picked the "hawk" the last two elections?

Fortunately for John Lennon, he's not around to see the rejection of his peace proposal, even by the touchy feely party. John, I???ll bring a ???Chicago??? t-shirt for you, when I come home to Jesus.

PS to NYTimes ??? unsubscribe

Sent by JLennon | 5:29 PM ET | 01-25-2008

You could not be more wrong about Hillary! You are not seeing the truth
about her!

Don't be superficial!

This is part of the New York Times Editorial board's endorsement:

"We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America???s voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won???t be able to do it town by town.

When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House."

She has dedicated and sacrificed most of her life to serving this country for the better!

Do not listen to the people who try to smear her!

Some Republicans are threatened by her because she is such an intelligent, competent, dedicated, woman.

They have been grossly smearing her for years!

Can you imagine what it would be like to be in the public eye and be attacked incessantly no matter what you do?

And have all your dedication, all your work and effort to make things better, all the good things you've done - never given enough credit or acknowledgement?

She is an extremely caring person. She got into politics as a young girl because of how much she cares about the well-being of children in our country.

And she has done so much since then!

But is that what people pay attention to? No.

Too many people are hyper-critical of Hillary when she does not at all deserve it; they buy into the Republican smears, they judge her when they don't even truly know her or how profound her dedication has been to our country - truly caring and desiring to make effective change for all of our country.

There is no one more dedicated than Hillary.

Sent by Lauren | 5:42 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Lauren-- by any chance are you a HRC campaign worker? Your zeal seems a little superficial and slightly hysterical.

Sent by FLB | 6:59 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Wow!!! "You are not seeing the truth
about her! ... Don't be superficial!"

I voted for Bill Clinton twice and I WAS inspired enough by Hillary to read "Living History" and give it to my wife. I was only transformed to an anti-Clintonite when I saw the attacks pile up against a fellow Democrat. It was THEN that I could related to the Republican anti-Hillary sentiment.

I watched the debate when Hillary dishonestly criticised Obama for (inter alia) (1)supporting Reagan policies; (2) working for a slum-lord; (3) changing his position on the war. And she failed to distance herself from Robert Johnson's clear insunation about Obama and drug use. She suggests Obama never stands behind his votes. How many ways has she spun her vote to give Bush the green light to invade Iraq? And she was a war hawk until Democratic sentiment forced her to conceed to troop withdrawl. She claims Obama avoided tough fights by voting "present" instead of "Yes/No" on bills before the Illinois legislature. As a Senator she has failed to be "present" on numerous votes, the true third voting option in the US Congress. And just how firm did she stand on her initial support of the idea to give illegal immigrants drivers licenses.

Please don't think that I, like countless Obama suppports, have just been caught up in the hype. That we've just lost sight of Hillary's "great and caring record of fighting for ordinary Americans". I consider myself somewhat familiar with and very disappointed in the evolution of the Clinton political presence in this country.

America should know better than to back another candidate so liberal with the truth.

No amount of experience is sufficient to allow me to overlook divisiveness and disception.

Sent by JLennon | 7:04 PM ET | 01-25-2008

Legitimate challenges that clearly demonstrate differences between Obama's claims and his record are denied and labelled "mudslinging".
Case in point: During the South Carolina debate, Obama said he was working with unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago while Hillary Clinton was "...a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart." When Clinton fired back that she was working on behalf of others while Obama worked in the legal defense of his campaign contributor and "slumlord", Tony Rezko, she is characterized as participating in "...mudslinging."
Let's put aside the mountain of advocacy work Hillary Clinton accomplished before Barack Obama even started his three years as a community organizer, and fast-forward to the time Obama mentions:
When Clinton worked at the Rose Law Firm she was also First Lady of Arkansas and mother to her new daughter, Chelsea. In her work at the firm, she specialized in patent infringement and intellectual property law, while also working pro-bono in child advocacy cases. During that time she co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund, and was appointed by President Carter the Board of Legal Services and served as Chair. She was the Chair of the Arkansas Rural Health Advisory Committee, and expanded medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas, served on the Board of The Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services and served on the Board of The Children's Defense Fund, and lent her support to educational and early intervention causes in Arkansas, in addition to serving on the corporate boards of TCBY and Wal-Mart.
Clinton was the first female to serve on Wal-Mart's board, and once there was a vocal advocate for more environmentally-friendly practices and for an increase in opportunities for women in the chain's management. Obama, a skilled speaker, is able to imply much in his tone, and his comment dismissed all the work listed above and characterized her as living like corporate fat-cat while he was working with his sleeves rolled up saving folks on the streets of Chicago. The quote is one thing, but the context is another; tone and timing communicate more than words; it was an insult as well as an intentional mischaracterization of Senator Clinton's actual record. It was a planned, provocative statement and Clinton fired back with an equally provocative, yet legitimate question. Clinton could have mentioned that Michelle Obama served on the board of TreeHouse Foods, Inc., a major Wal-Mart supplier with whom she cut ties immediately after her husband made comments critical of Wal-Mart at an AFL-CIO forum in Trenton, New Jersey, on May 14, 2007. Michelle Obama was paid $51,200 by TreeHouse in 2006 (Hillary, by the way, was paid $18,000 for her Wal-Mart work). Are we to pretend Barack and Michelle didn't know Treehouse and Wal-Mart are committed in business? Why was Michelle's service to Treehouse ended only AFTER it became a campaign liability and not before? Obama has gotten much of his support due to his image as someone who is takes the moral high ground and is above "politics as usual". The links with Rezko, especially in relation to the purchase of the Obama's million dollar home, show that Obama is vulnerable to scrutiny, and voters need to know that Barack Obama is after all, merely human like the rest of us, a calculating politician, and a pretty good mudslinger himself.

Sent by Penelope Snow | 10:23 AM ET | 01-30-2008