Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
Fri May 13, 2016, 09:23 AM May 2016

L.A. Times editorial board endorses Hillary - 'Most likely to transform ideals into action'

L.A. Times Opinion @latimesopinion
The L.A. Times editorial board endorses Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary http://lat.ms/222msau


A year ago, Hillary Clinton seemed to be on her way to a serene, obstacle-free coronation as the 2016 Democratic nominee for president. In an April 14, 2015, editorial, The Times bemoaned the fact that the Democratic race consisted of “exactly one candidate with a truly national profile” — the former secretary of state and U.S. senator from New York. The editorial did mention Sen. Bernie Sanders, but only as one of a group of second-tier figures that also included former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former U.S. Sen Jim Webb of Virginia (remember them?).

Today, as California prepares for its primary on June 7, Clinton is again on the verge of victory. But what a difference a year has made. In the intervening months, so many Democrats and independents have felt the Bern that the self-described democratic socialist from Vermont acquired the national stature that seemed improbable a year ago. His passionate excoriation of a “rigged economy” and his call for a sweeping political revolution energized millions of Americans, especially young voters, and he put Clinton on the defensive about her ties to Wall Street, her support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the trade policies of her husband’s Bill Clinton’s administration.

Yet even though he has proved a far more formidable challenger than we — or Clinton — expected, Sanders lacks the experience and broad understanding of domestic and (especially) foreign policy that the former secretary of state would bring to the presidency. Although Sanders has tapped into very real and widespread anxieties about economic inequality, deindustrialization and stagnant economic growth, his prescriptions are too often simplistic, more costly than he would have us believe and unlikely to come to pass.

The Vermont senator has made the race more substantive and has forced his opponent to address issues that might otherwise have gone undiscussed, but in the end he has offered little reason to believe that he would be able to enlist recalcitrant Republicans in Congress in accomplishing his priorities. Rather, he told the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, he would say to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell: “Hey, Mitch, look out the window. There’s a million young people out there now. And they’re following politics in a way they didn’t before. If you want to vote against this legislation, go for it. But you and some of your friends will not have your seats next election.” If only it were that simple.

By contrast, Clinton, for all her faults — and they range from a penchant for secrecy to a willingness to modify her positions to suit the popular mood to a less-restrained view of the use of military force than we are entirely comfortable with — is vastly better prepared than Sanders for the presidency. She has The Times’ endorsement in the June 7 California Democratic primary.

Clinton may seem inauthentic to some or to lack that drink-a-beer-with-me quality that voters often look for in a candidate. But she has a grasp of the complexities of government and policy that is unmatched by any of the other candidates who ran for president this year — or by most candidates in most years. She is sober and thoughtful, in possession not just of the facts she needs to make her arguments but of a depth of experience that undergirds her decisions. These qualities are reassuring in juxtaposition to a primary opponent who does not offer, at the end of the day, a serious alternative and, and a likely opponent in the general election who is unprepared, unsuited for the job and dangerous.
Clinton would be the first woman elected president of the United States. But the real reason to support her is that she is the Democratic candidate most likely to get the job done.

From her early days as a children’s rights advocate to her role as an activist first lady in pressing for healthcare reform to her public service in the Senate and as secretary of State, Clinton has demonstrated a steely persistence and a keen intellect. She and Sanders agree on many broad goals, including expanding healthcare, regulating the financial sector and reducing America’s reliance on fossil fuels. But where Sanders offers audacious, utopian solutions, Clinton adopts a more incremental approach that has a better chance of success during a time of divided government and political dysfunction when negotiation and compromise will be more important than ever.

For example, Sanders wants to establish a single-payer, British style health insurance system he calls “Medicare for all.” Clinton counters with the obvious: It was difficult enough for President Obama to win congressional support for the Affordable Care Act (which many Republicans in Congress still want to repeal) and the emphasis should be on building on and improving on the ACA, not tossing it out and starting from scratch. What’s more, some experts say Sanders’ proposal would cost twice as much as he estimates it will and could increase the size of the federal government by as much as 50%.

When it comes to financial reform, Sanders has proposed a bill to break up financial institutions that regulators have deemed too big to fail. But the measure, which offers no clues as to how the Treasury Department would go about doing so, seems aimed at exacting a punishment on companies at the heart of the last recession, rather than addressing the behavior that caused it. To that end, Clinton has called for strengthening the Dodd-Frank Act signed by Obama in 2010, which had many of the right concepts but not necessarily the right details.

The two candidates offer a stark contrast when they discuss the issues facing the country. Sanders focuses — often in an inspiring way — on grand causes and doesn’t sweat the details. Clinton is acutely conscious of the political and practical obstacles that must be negotiated in order to bring about change. In our view that’s an asset.

Clinton is by no means perfect. On foreign policy, for instance, Sanders has faulted her for voting to authorize President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and warns that she would be more likely than he would to involve U.S. forces in overseas operations.

He is probably right, and that is a serious concern about the former secretary of State. But when to use military force is a difficult question for any president, and the ideal commander in chief will be neither too hesitant to use force when necessary to defend vital U.S. interests nor so reckless as to regard military action as a first resort. Although Clinton has made mistakes — not only the Iraq vote but also in pressing for military action in Libya as secretary of State — we don’t see her as a reflexive advocate of military force. (Like Sanders, she opposes the use of U.S. ground combat forces in the war against Islamic State.) To the extent that she is less committed to restraint, we hope that she will keep in mind the lessons of recent U.S. escapades in the Middle East, which have been terribly expensive in money and lives and yet have repeatedly failed to achieve their goals.

Clinton’s campaign has been dogged from the start by issues related to transparency. Take the question of what Sanders called those “damn emails” — official messages Clinton sent and received on a private email server while secretary of State. It seems unlikely that she is in danger of criminal prosecution, but the fact that the FBI is investigating at all is embarrassing. The same self-defeating resistance to disclosure is evident in Clinton’s stubborn refusal to release the contents of speeches she delivered while out of public office to Goldman Sachs and other corporate audiences.

Clinton also has altered her positions in light of shifting political winds. She has come out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiated by the Obama administration, even though as secretary of State she referred to it (before the final details had been agreed on) as setting “the gold standard in trade agreements.” In 2008, she said that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare, and by rare I mean rare.” This February, after being endorsed by Planned Parenthood, she dropped the “rare.”

Clinton, of course, isn’t the only politician who adjusts some of her positions to suit the politics of the day. (Compare Obama’s “evolution” on same-sex marriage.) Still, the perception that she is malleable has been a disadvantage in her race against Sanders, whose message has been remarkably consistent for decades. If she is the nominee, she will need to remind voters — or convince them for the first time — that, while she is open to compromise and willing to consider new facts, she too has core convictions.

As all the world knows, Clinton would be the first woman elected president of the United States. That would be a joyous, long-awaited, landmark moment in American history after centuries of discrimination and second-class status for half the population. But the real reason to support her is that she is the Democratic candidate most likely to get the job done.

Compared to the intoxicating altruism of the Sanders’ campaign, Clinton’s candidacy might seem unexciting. But nominating a candidate for president is, or ought to be, serious business. As Obama himself likely would admit after almost eight years in the White House, there is more to being president than grand promises, whether they are about “hope and change” or a political revolution. We admire Bernie Sanders’ passion for progress and equality, but our endorsement goes to the candidate who is more likely to translate ideals into action.


read: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-democratic-presidential-endorsement-20160426-story.html

Transcript: Hillary Clinton speaks to the L.A. Times editorial board about war, women and her ability to navigate partisan obstructionism
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ol-hillary-clinton-editorial-board-meeting-20160505-snap-story.html
22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
L.A. Times editorial board endorses Hillary - 'Most likely to transform ideals into action' (Original Post) bigtree May 2016 OP
An important endorsement. kstewart33 May 2016 #1
But are those actions and ideals the ones for families? Baobab May 2016 #11
"Sanders lacks the experience and broad understanding of domestic and (especially) foreign policy".. DCBob May 2016 #2
He'd be weak and ineffective. NurseJackie May 2016 #20
kick bigtree May 2016 #3
» bigtree May 2016 #4
I wish I knew what those ideals were. bobbobbins01 May 2016 #5
Only yuou can do the work of informing yourself anigbrowl May 2016 #10
I'm as imformed as you can get. bobbobbins01 May 2016 #13
Sure, buddy. anigbrowl May 2016 #14
Whats her position on coal this week? bobbobbins01 May 2016 #15
The same as it was when she blew off Don Blankenship anigbrowl May 2016 #17
Any and all truth is wasted on those who examine it Hortensis May 2016 #22
K&R! JaneyVee May 2016 #6
That's what scares me. Throd May 2016 #7
sure it does bigtree May 2016 #8
That's a significant endorsement. lovemydog May 2016 #9
There's no such thing as a "significant endorsement". If anyone votes for someone due to an Exilednight May 2016 #19
Okay lovemydog May 2016 #21
My vote for "OP of the Month" honors. oasis May 2016 #12
Nice! workinclasszero May 2016 #16
kick bigtree May 2016 #18

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
11. But are those actions and ideals the ones for families?
Fri May 13, 2016, 04:27 PM
May 2016

or for corporations?

For example, the ideals for corporations are often the exact opposite of what is best for families.

Recent research shows that corporations seem to get their interests serviced by government >90% of the time but that families interests are basically ignored by the powers that be. his wont do because these issues are increasingly matters of life or death for families as the global economy shifts towards automation. Hillary represents a status quo that seems hell bent on locking the country and the world into bad policy constraints in as inflexible as possible a manner, by means of irreversible trade deals.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
2. "Sanders lacks the experience and broad understanding of domestic and (especially) foreign policy"..
Fri May 13, 2016, 10:05 AM
May 2016
Sanders lacks the experience and broad understanding of domestic and (especially) foreign policy that the former secretary of state would bring to the presidency. Although Sanders has tapped into very real and widespread anxieties about economic inequality, deindustrialization and stagnant economic growth, his prescriptions are too often simplistic, more costly than he would have us believe and unlikely to come to pass.


 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
10. Only yuou can do the work of informing yourself
Fri May 13, 2016, 04:23 PM
May 2016

Some of them are mentioned right there in the article, as well as being examined in the context of her previous activities, but we can't help if you choose to ignore it. 'She doesn't stand for anything' isn't true for being repeated so often as a campaign meme.

bobbobbins01

(1,681 posts)
13. I'm as imformed as you can get.
Fri May 13, 2016, 04:36 PM
May 2016

But she says something different every week. So no, I don't have a clue what she stands for.

 

anigbrowl

(13,889 posts)
17. The same as it was when she blew off Don Blankenship
Fri May 13, 2016, 04:45 PM
May 2016

She's against coal, she doesn't want coal workers to suffer on that account.

I'm very tired of some Bernie supporters taking a complex nuanced issue and trying to make some scandal out of her dealing with its complexity instead of dumbing it down.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
22. Any and all truth is wasted on those who examine it
Sat May 14, 2016, 05:36 PM
May 2016

only for possible ammunition.

I figure the best we can do is point out facts and our point of view as a gesture to the many quiet visitors and move on. Otherwise there is no point to being here.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
19. There's no such thing as a "significant endorsement". If anyone votes for someone due to an
Sat May 14, 2016, 08:11 AM
May 2016

Endorsement, then that person is an idiot.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»L.A. Times editorial boar...