The Indianapolis Star follows The News-Sentinel's example and endorses Hillary Clinton:
As impressive as Obama appears, he is still in his first term in the U.S. Senate, and only four years ago was serving as an Illinois state senator. His inexperience in high office is a liability.
Clinton, in contrast, is well prepared for the rigors of the White House. She is tough, experienced and realistic about what can and cannot be accomplished on the world stage.
I have a bet with myself that The Journal Gazette will endorse Obama. He's the more liberal of the two, and the JG will see him as the best chance for progressive ideas. But this is a risky election to be making bets on, so who knows? Here's my brilliant observation from March 20, 2007: "It's way to early to start speculating on
Comments
The Indy Star doesn't articulate why Clinton's 4 additional years in the United States Senate prepare her more than Obama's 8 years in the Illinois Senate. And, if the Star is giving her experience points for being the wife of a President, they should explain why.
"My first nomination to the Goner category is John McCain."
Finagle's First Law in action!
There is not much difference between any of the major candidates. Applying the word "trust" effectively eliminates Obama, Clinton and McCain.
As for experience, none of the candidates have been in charge of anything before, none have experienced the extreme pressures that go with the office of POTUS, and none of them are capable of telling the truth.