Beyond their personal appeal, the candidates have outlined ambitious policy proposals on health care, education and rural policy. Yet these proposals do little to help separate the field. Their plans are similar, reflecting a growing consensus in the party about how to approach priority issues.:
The choice, then, comes down to preparedness: Who is best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces - from ending the Iraq war to shoring up America's middle class to confronting global climate change?
The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.
That candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
From working for children's rights as a young lawyer, to meeting with leaders around the world as first lady, to emerging as an effective legislator in her service as a senator, every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency.
I expected an Obama endorsement, but this isn't really a huge surprise. What does not really thrill me is the reasoning involved. If policy proposals don't matter, and the register was just looking for someone with a long resume to take over the job, Bill Richardson comfortably surpasses any other candidate in the field, including Clinton, and yet he isn't even mentioned in the article. Seriously, no one is even close to Richardson's resume. Beyond that, this is the paragraph that really disturbed me (emphasis mine):
Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the "positive, optimistic" campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.
I see. Musn't upset the powers that be. I guess positive, optimistic rhetoric actually means making those in charge feel comfortable. At least that has been made plain now. The failure to challenge the status quo is actually what has always bothered me about newspaper endorsements. I'm not sure how the paper figures that "shoring up America's middle class to confronting global climate change," are going to be accomplished in any effective manner as long as the American business community maintains veto power over the type of change we pursue in order to confront those problems. But hey, whatever. Maybe there really are consensus, establishment approved, workable solutions to these problems that are only being held up by partisan polarizers like me.