• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Devil in the details

I've gotten a lot of feedback on our editorial "endorsing" Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primary, including some from a good friend who has given up a large part of her personal life to volunteer for Obama. (I offered her a guest column spot if she wanted to write a rebuttal, so stay tuned for that possibility.)

I used the quote marks around endorsing because the editorial didn't exactly sing Clinton's praises. I don't expect an endorsement of a Democrat in the primary by a conservative editorial page means that much to Democratic voters. Republicans likewise shouldn't pay too much attention to The Journal Gazette's endorsement of primary Republicans, since the probability of the paper endorsing those same Republicans in the fall is exceedingly small. But we try to stay in the same conversations everybody else is having, and all we can do is be as honest as we can be. I hope the editorial succeeded:

There are two candidates in the Democratic primary, and they are both very liberal - just look at their ratings by political watchdog groups. Clinton is the less liberal of the two. It is that simple.

I caught a little bit of Pat White on WOWO on the way home yesterday, and he summarized the editorial as "opting for the devil we know" as opposed to the devil we don't know. That's as good a description as any, I guess, but it requires a little elaboration.

To say Clinton is "divisive" is only another way to say the country is divided. Half the country thinks one way, half another, and both sides are getting more entrenched and dismissive of the other side. We have to take that division as it is and deal with it. I think Obama is promising something he can't deliver -- a new kind of politics, moving beyond the old ways, all that "hope and change" stuff. When you cut through the rhetoric, he is a liberal politician -- nothing more, nothing less -- just like Clinton. The conservative half of the nation isn't going to roll over and play dead just because President Obama says so, especially when it becomes clear he's just going to make government bigger and spend more money.

Comments

A J Bogle
Wed, 04/30/2008 - 11:36am

Go on just admit it - the N-S IS supporting Hillary, afterall she is the one of all three remaining candidates including McCain that most closely matches the neo conservative/neo-liberal views of this paper and its editorial staff.

Hillary is the status quo cadidate, McCain is the more of the same o same o candidate, albeit a bit of the unhinged variety, Sure you can mock the hope and change, but that is precisely what this country needs at this juncture.

I'lll take the devil I don't know rather than the two we do at this point, certainly can't do any worse

Leo Morris
Wed, 04/30/2008 - 1:33pm

Well, whichever candidate we support WILL be the one whose views most closely match the views of the editorial page. That shocks whom?

Harl Delos
Wed, 04/30/2008 - 4:41pm

Karl Rove has been supporting Hillary all along, because he is pretty sure the GOP can beat the junior Senator from New York.

And Senator Clinton has been saying some awfully nice things about the Senator from Arizona, too. That's because she doesn't want to battle an incumbent for the presidential nomination in 2012.

If you were looking for the conservative choice, you'd ask yourself, what are their war policies.

McCain thinks we should remain in Iraq for 50 years, or even 100 years, maintaining an armed presence that's going to be a burr in their side, and a constant source of conflict.

McCain thinks that 8-year-olds will be able to afford health insurance out of their allowance if you give them a big enough tax deduction.

McCain has a reputation of being unable to control a really nasty temper.

Hillary wants to expand the war, by taking on Iran, and escaling from a minor armed conflict to full scale nuclear war.

Hillary has a terrific health care program that covers everyone and does everything, and the last half of her 35 years of experience has been spent NOT getting it passed.

Hillary is a fighter, and will readily kneecap anyone in sight, guaranteeing that she won't get anything passed at all.

Obama thinks the purpose of a strong military is to avoid war, not to fight war.

He suggests a plan that at least gets kids insured, since it's not a kid's fault that he has parents of modest means.

He has a history of collaborating with the GOP to achieve small changes that everyone agrees to, rather than radical, unachievable changes.

Karl Rove promotes Senator Clinton's candidacy, because he knows it would be awfully easy to beat someone that nobody trusts anyway. If the News-Sentinel wants to concur with Karl Rove, fine, but please don't suggest that Senator Clinton is more conservative than Senator Obama. Your readership may be aging, but they aren't senile. They know the difference between a conservative and a neo-con.

William Joseph Miller
Wed, 04/30/2008 - 4:49pm

Dear Indiana voter,

I am the bad, latte-sipping elitist that Hillary Clinton has programmed you to hate and fear. I live in Los Angeles. Everything she says about me is probably true. Even more horrifying, I

gadfly
Wed, 04/30/2008 - 4:53pm

Leo ...

Rush Limbaugh and his ditto-heads appreciate the News Sentinel's support for Operation Chaos! :)

Harl Delos
Thu, 05/01/2008 - 11:53am

Mr. Miller asks: What would happen to the cost of gasoline if we covered those rooves with solar energy collectors?

Unfortunately, it would raise the price a little, but not much. It takes a lot of petroleum to produce those collectors. You'd generate more energy by burning the petroleum than the useful energy produced by the collectors.

The best way to collect solar energy is to raise vegetation. Photosynthesis is pretty efficient. You'd need more expensive construction, though, to support weight of the farm on the roof, and it'd be fairly difficult to harvest the crops in many cases.

Simply using black roofing would be fairly inexpensive and it'd help with heating costs in winter. In a climate like Los Angeles', though, your added air conditioning costs would outweigh your savings in heating.

The best idea? Put the entire building underground. You'd have modest heating costs year-around - in a climate like Fort Wayne, it's about 50F underground, and in a climate like Los Angeles, it's about 64F. Most people don't like living in a cave, though.

If everybody had a well-insulated house, with air/air heat exchangers for ventilation, and used a ground-water heat pump for HVAC, it'd save quite a bit of energy.

Even though LA

gadfly
Thu, 05/01/2008 - 5:42pm

From the Urban Dictionary:

1. rooves

The plural of "roof," for people too dumb to know that the real word is "roofs."

Quantcast