New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

The New York Times, one of the world’s most highly respected newspapers, just announced their editorial board’s decision to endorse Hillary Clinton and John McCain in the upcoming primaries. While the endorsement of McCain isn’t such a surprise, the NYT’s endorsement seemingly could have gone to Obama or Clinton. Luckily, the Times doesn’t fall down on the typical “experience” excuse that Obama has refuted in the past. Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for the Times, shoots down Clinton’s “experience” argument today as well in a new editorial. Kristof notes that the politician that is “most experienced today in the classic sense” is Dick Cheney, and he succeeds in proving that the most experienced candidates aren’t always the ones we’d like to run our country. The stark differences in tone between the Republican and Democratic endorsements from the Times seem to echo the feelings of America today.

John McCain and Hillary Clinton, who received the endorsements of the New York Times today

Hopeful for the future, the Times “strongly recommends” that voters select Hillary Clinton from what is, luckily, not “an uninspiring pack.” While the Times focuses mainly on Clinton and Obama, they make a point of noting that Edwards has “enlivened the race with his own brand of populism,” which may, according to analysts, help to make him a kingmaker at the Democratic Convention later in the year. They do, however, temper their admiration of his dedication by saying that they’re “not sure shere he stands,” effectively making Edwards’ the Democratic flip-flopper, like his 2004 running mate John Kerry.The recommendation to vote for Clinton doesn’t mean the Times doesn’t recognize the strength and benefits of an Obama candidacy, and they draw attention to his successes as well. A key point the Times makes, however, is the fact that “Firstness” is not a reason to choose a certain candidate in this election. Despite what the mainstream media may say, many voters do delve deep into issues and are not voting for candidates superficially. CNN ran a horrendous story last week on the subject, mentioning what they basically call the plight of black women voters. It’s not a question of whether or not to vote for the first woman or first black man. It’s instead a question of who’s going to run the country better.

Barack Obama, Clinton’s main adversary in the quest for the Democratic nomination

The New York Times has decided that Clinton is that candidate. Both candidates, they feel, can repair the “grievous harm” Bush has done to the United States’ image around the world. As I have said in the past, Clinton and Obama really don’t have that much separating them in terms of major issues, and the Times agrees. While Obama highlights change in his candidacy, Hillary has recently taken his message and reiterated it with her own spin, garnering praise from pundits after she “found her voice” after victory in New Hampshire. Key reasons the Times mentions for selecting Clinton include “the depth of her knowledge, …the force of her intellect, and..the breadth of, yes, her experience.” They go even further, praising Clinton and saying she would be a “strong commander in chief.” The problem with Obama’s campaign is that he deals in abstracts, and Clinton seems instead to be equipped with in-depth answers and a clear plan for America’s future. The ideals held by both candidates - the elimination of No Child Left Behind, broadened health coverage, and more - are music to the majority of Americans’ ears. The Times critiques Clinton’s camp as well, explaining that while they support her candidacy, they’d prefer that she abandon the divisive and negative attacks she has pursued against Obama and other competitors. That didn’t stop them, however, from calling Clinton the “best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.”The tone of the McCain endorsement is strikingly different, but the liberal slant of the New York Times means it isn’t quite a surprise. McCain’s bipartisan efforts in the past have led the Times, and much of America, to conclude that he is America’s best hope at uniting the two parties, a contrast to Hillary’s often divisive politics. The editorial begins, “We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president,” and then proceeds to lampoon them for a laundry list of failures in the campaigning season, including a lack of a plan for Iraq, clinging to discredited economic theories, and more. McCain received the endorsement because of his ability to stand on principles, battle global warming, and stand up for the ethical treatment of detainees.

Rudy Giuliani, former NYC Mayor and current Republican candidate

The remainder of the endorsement, however, focuses on Rudolph Giuliani, the onetime mayor and also-ran presidential contender in 2008. His candidacy depends largely on success in Florida, which he is unlikely to achieve. The Times claims that the mayor they endorsed in 1997 for reelection is not “the man..running for president.” We’ll be analyzing Giuliani’s campaign in an upcoming feature article as well. The Times closes their editorial by claiming that McCain is not a “moderate,” but still is “the best choice for the party’s presidential nomination.”New School Politics will publish our official endorsements later in the month, but I believe that those of The New York Times should be a valuable resource to voters in their quest to find an adequate candidate for the 2008 election. They should, however, be taken with a grain of salt as well, as Obama’s endorsement by New Hampshire papers like the Nashua Telegraph failed to produce results for him in that crucial early primary. We’ll have more on the presidential election, including the aforementioned piece on Giuliani, tomorrow.

Popularity: 63% [?]

Today was a big day for presidential politics, as the long-shot candidate (and one of my closet favorites) Dennis Kucinich decided to cease his run for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Calling it a “transition,” Kucinich insisted [in a video to Cleveland's Plain Dealer] he wanted to continue to serve in Congress and will pursue re-election. He’s been in the news recently for his plan to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush on January 28th, the day of his State of the Union speech. Kucinich’s speech, where he tears into Bush claiming, “We already know the State of the Union…it’s a lie,” is available on YouTube. He was rebuked by House Republicans afterwards, and Florida GOP Rep. Cliff Stearns called Kucinich’s plan a “personal attack.” Kucinich’s famed single-player health care plan, a hallmark of his campaign, may find its way into the healthcare plans of other candidates. Kucinich’s often radical views brought some humor and some radicalism to the race, and he will be missed. The mainstream media, it seems, made it more difficult for Kucinich to continue his run, excluding him from the past couple of debates.

Former Democratic Candidate Dennis Kucinich

We’re expecting announcements over the next couple of days of a couple of more resignations as the fields thin with the continuing primaries. Mike Gravel, a Democrat who has polled even lower than Kucinich, still remains in the race along with John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. The Republican field saw the loss of Fred Thompson the other day, and if Rudy Giuliani doesn’t win in Florida, he looks like he’ll be the next casualty. On Super Tuesday, February 5th, join New School Politics for live multimedia and written coverage of the primary results from twenty-four states, along with in-depth analysis from our staff of writers.

Popularity: 59% [?]

The morning after most who paid attention are left with certain unanswered questions. Namely:

How did Clinton win New Hampshire?

and, how did the polls get it so wrong?

The first answer is explained by most of the exit polling. Despite independents showing up in large numbers (44% of all the Dem primary voters) with 41% of them voting for Obama vs. 31% for Clinton, Democrats went decisively for Clinton (45%-34%). This, along with Hillary winning woman (46%-34%), who account fo 57% of the primary’s voters, propelled her to the top.

As for the second question, no one really knows why the polls go it so wrong. The problem is, any explanation must account for the systematic error of the polling, because all of the New Hampshire polls had Obama winning. Additionally, the polls were completely accurate predicting the GOP race, so that throws another wrench into the equation. It suggests that problem was not with the pollsters, but with the voters. Meaning, many decided at the last moment for Clinton, or many changed their minds.

Hopefully, this mystery will be solved in due time.

Popularity: 22% [?]