The State endorsed Senator Barack Obama yesterday and discussed why the Clintons would be a divisive step backwards:
Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself.Maureen Dowd of The New York Times discusses how Senator Barack Obama is running against Billary in Two Against One:
The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.
It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line.And Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post discusses what's really bugging Bill.
Obama's candidacy not only threatens to obliterate the dream of a Clinton Restoration. It also fundamentally calls into question Bill Clinton's legacy by making it seem . . . not really such a big deal.And I have to say thank you to Peggy Noonan of The Wall Street Journal. On Meet the Press she brought up the troubling fact of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasties. Why this story doesn't get more play, I'm not sure. Keeping the Presidency in the hands of two families is a joke. In a country of millions, Presidential dynasties should not occur. If I wanted royalty, I'd move to England.
