From my heart, thanks lot Toni for your inspirational endorsement

Blah, blah blah. What has the guy actually DONE????? I'm waiting to see any kind of results of all this creativity and inspiration??? So far the only thing I've heard is he helped get a bill passed so that if a lobbyist buys you food you have to stand up to eat it. Big stinking deal. That will really turn Washington upside down.

Why didn't the NY Times endorsement of Clinton last week get any MSNBC coverage? Every negative article  run on the Clinton's shows up on MSNBC's web-page and newscast and every endorsement from the major to the minor players behind Obama is announced as if it will make a difference to most voters. The NY Times has been running anti-Clinton op-ed pieces at a rate of about 9 to 1 in the past month, but they still endorsed her for the democratic nomination. She is the best candidate and she has my vote.

January 25, 2008
Editorial
Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton

This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.

The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.

As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.

We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.

On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.

The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave.

On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the same course — shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans, and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind education program.

Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and what must now be done to set things right.

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America’s voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won’t be able to do it town by town.

When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.
anuary 25, 2008
Editorial
Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton

This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.

The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.

As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.

We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.

On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.

The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave.

On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the same course — shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans, and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind education program.

Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and what must now be done to set things right.

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America’s voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won’t be able to do it town by town.

When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.

Jim Banks,
Real classy.  You might want to look at the polls in South Carolina a bit more closely.   A higher percentage of WHITE VOTERS under 45 voted for Obama than for Hillary.  The only reason she had a higher percentage of white voters overall was because of the avalanche of old twisted and prejudiced voters who are still stuck in the 50s (like apparently you are).  It's funny that the generation that grew up in the 60s, the one that always claimed to be the most enlightened, is the one that's showing it's true colors (or lack of color, which I guess is white).

Clinton smear machine on Morrison begins in three . . , two, . . , one . . .

StopwatchingMSNBC, when Bill Clinton's DNC director endorses his wife, it's not news.  When his Poet Laureate, who spoke at his inauguration and proclaimed him America's First Black President, endorses her opponent, it's news.

Who's Toni Morrison?  I'm not being flip.  I just have never heard of her.

you can tell all the hillary monitors on here..Must have nothing to do but distort facts..So if you have the time tell me whats shes done for 35 yrs that makes her more qualified to be commander in chief..She has no more experience than Obama....She couldnt even see what bill was doing in the white house..

An incredibly beautiful letter from Toni Morrison.  Thank god some people have the talent to put into words the feelings that I feel.
Obama '08

Wow...every time a prominent female endorses Obama, the Hillary-lovers come out in droves to declare that the said female only made her decision because she was black/stupid or thats she's irrelevant anyway, so it doesn't matter...

I bet they'd be singing a different tune had Hillary got this endorsement...

Hey Hillary(the candidate who wouldn't know good campaigning tactics if they danced in front of her naked) and Bill(our 42nd WHITE president), having 'fun' yet?

OBAMA '08!!!

I AGREE WITH THE BLOGGERS WHO SAY WE CANT LET THIS MOMENT SLIP AWAY WE MAY NEVER EVER HAVE A CHANCE FOR CHANGE AGAIN. GO MS. MORRISON GREAT DECISION.

@ HMT-MI - "Gresham (better and more famous author) has endorsed Hillary"....  Really?  Last time I checked, college lit classes were reading Song of Solomon, not The Pelican Brief.  

Regardless, that was a beautifully written letter of endorsement.  And to everyone faulting MSNBC for the coverage they are giving, Toni Morrison famously praised Bill Clinton during his presidency.  The fact that she is now endorsing Obama is a blow to the Clinton campaign.

@ Lynne - I'm sure "Slum Lord" Rezko's indictment will "do him in"... just as much as Norman Hsu's did Hillary in.  

Let's stop the holier-than-thou mudslinging.  People take campaign contributions for hundreds of thousands of people... a candidate can't be responsible for the actions of their contributors.  The eventual candidate will have enough trouble dealing with this kind of attack from the republicans... so for now, let's keep it civil and tone down the rhetoric

Obama is the most divisive candidate ever, and cannot possibly win with 10-25% of the white voters in this country...these are the FACTS of his numbers.  when he comes out west it will be even less than that.  its a fairy tale to pretend that race doesnt matter, when it so obviously does among black voters and celebs.

Toni has say it all am now taking this chance to beg all the parties involve to please step down for Obama who is the anointed one.for the clinton should believe that the party is over  

I see many comments in this discussion devaluing Ms. Morrison’s endorsement of Senator Obama, as she is only supporting him based on his race.  When I see comments that ‘gee that’s surprising considering only 4 out of 5 black are backing him it frustrates me.  White constituents do not bear this same level of scrutiny.  I did not see anyone making such assertions, when Gore endorsed John Kerry.  I mean, surely 4 out 5 white people were backing the white candidate.  

I ask that you read Ms. Morrison’s comments in its entirety before making judgments; she specifically states “race” was not a determining factor in giving her endorsement.  People give endorsements or vote for their candidate for variety of reasons: yes, there will be those who decide simply on race (black & white alike), gender, party affiliation, vanity, because the candidate holds the same position they do on a particular issue or simply because they believe in what they can offer.  Please do not hold African-Americans’ to a different standard for backing, a United States Senator who is highly educated, successful, and happens to share a ethnic identity; because they believe in his message.  Yes, I am an African-American Female, who is on the fence about who to support, either Obama or Edwards, in this election

becky richardson, la ca.>>Do you ask yourself why only 10-25% of white voters only support Senator Obama & why you consider his candidacy divisive?.  Unfortunately, race does matter, just not in the way you intended it to with your comments

Ase! Ms. Morrison. Maybe, just maybe, we can unite and jump together through this tiny window of opportunity toward reclamation of our collective sanity. I wish PEACE TO ALL on this most memorable night.

Toni Morrison has captured the spirit of the man.  I believe Obama is the truth.  I beleive he brings more experience to a nation filled with diverse issues and challenges through his life experiences.  I believe he can and will inspire us all to want better for ourselves and for our neighbors.  I believe he is the HOPE of our generation and for generations to come.  I pray we ALL move beyond bickering and hatred to a place of peace and love for all mankind.  I know in my heart that Senator Obama can answer the call and YES HE CAN because he is ready.  Age is just a number compared to wisdom which is priceless!!!  The Clintons had their chance; NOW IT IS TIME FOR WE the PEOPLE through the unified voice of Obama and Michelle.  

REZKO:  so what, the one blemish Obama has, everybody makes mistakes.  no one is 100% clean & I'm sure the nature of Obama's relationship with this person is NOTHING compared to the MANY MANY skeletons in the clintons closet.  so GET OVER IT.  l

As previously posted:

Obama is the most divisive candidate ever, and cannot possibly win with 10-25% of the white voters in this country...these are the FACTS of his numbers.  when he comes out west it will be even less than that.  its a fairy tale to pretend that race doesnt matter, when it so obviously does among black voters and celebs.
becky richardson la cal. (Sent Monday, January 28, 2008 1:41

I am in Montana, and you are WRONG !!!!  The Pacific Northwest is not comprised of ignorant rednecks, as you seem to assume.  barack is very well liked here, among whites, Native Americans, and everyone else!

Montana for Obama.

I think she eloquently describes to perfection how people feel about the possibility of an Obama presidency. People of all cultures and backgrounds are excited and hopeful again in this country and he's to credit. Sour-grapes of course from Clinton supporters - typical. Obamanite's stay positive!  

Very Interesting, watching things closely from BC.  Oboma 08!!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):