Perspective

Thoughts of a Catholic convert

My Photo
Name:
Location: United States

Sunday, June 05, 2016

LA Times: vote for Hillary



It's almost time to vote in my state primary and both Hillary and Bernie have been campaigning here. I hope Hillary wins! Even if she doesn't, she will still almost certainly be the Democratic candidate since Bernie would still be behind in popular votes (she has like 3 million more than him) and delegates, but a Bernie win will probably make it harder for her to beat Trump.

Hillary Clinton is the better candidate to take on Trump
- Los Angeles Times Editorial Board

[...] This page has endorsed Clinton not because she is more likely to win the nomination but because she is vastly better prepared than Sanders for the presidency.

We say that with full recognition that Sanders has captured the imagination of many Democrats with his articulate attacks on economic inequality and his talk of a political revolution. He can take credit for pressing Clinton to champion the interests of those who have been left behind in this economy.

But Clinton is not only more knowledgeable about domestic and international affairs than Sanders, but also more likely to achieve objectives they have in common. Her speech last week on foreign policy in San Diego -- in which she skillfully skewered Trump for his ignorance and recklessness -- was a reminder of the breadth of her understanding of international affairs. On domestic policy, her positions on issues such as healthcare and financial regulation are less utopian than what Sanders has proposed but also more realistic.

Some compare Sanders to President Obama, and there are similarities: Like Obama, Sanders opposed the war in Iraq while Clinton as a senator voted to authorize it. Sanders speaks in visionary terms and so did Obama in 2008 when he wrested the nomination from then-Sen. Clinton. But Obama’s vision was of bipartisan cooperation, not a political revolution in which, as Sanders has naively suggested, Republicans would simply capitulate to a Democratic president because a million young people would be massed outside the Capitol.

It’s true that Republicans often rebuffed Obama’s offers of cooperation, but it’s hard to imagine a President Sanders engaging any more successfully with them. Clinton, who as a senator and secretary of State was able to work cooperatively with Republicans, strikes us as being better equipped to reach across the partisan divide, something that will be necessary even if the Democrats regain control of Congress. A Clinton presidency would be more prosaic than a Sanders administration, but it also is likely to be more effective ....

2 Comments:

Blogger Susan said...

I agree. Although I have to add that I wish I liked one of the candidates even a fraction of how much I like Obama. And the obvious: This is the craziest, most awful election year I can remember.

11:54 AM  
Blogger crystal said...

Yeah, I like Obama too. I think that for the most part he is always trying to do the right thing. I don't think there's ever been a candidate that I thought was 100% what I was hoping for, but considering the Republican candidates, all the Democrats seem like saints :)

12:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home