South Dakota’s Largest Newspaper Endorses Hillary Clinton

The editorial board of South Dakota’s largest newspaper, the Argus Leader, announced today its endorsement of Sen. Hillary Clinton for president.

It was during her interview at the Argus Leader that Clinton mentioned that RFK in 1968 and Bill Clinton in 1992 campaigned until June.

I’ve copied the editorial board’s statement from today’s ArgusLeader.com and pasted it below:

May 30, 2008

Editorial: Clinton is top candidate for Dems

Editorial Board
Argus Leader

For the first time in memory, every state will play a role in choosing a nominee for the nation's highest office.

Some of those parts are small, but not ours: as one of the last two primary elections, South Dakota Democrats suddenly and improbably find themselves in a starring role.

That's an unlikely turn of events, as our state has improbably become a battleground in the long, hard race between two Senators seeking a spot at the top of the Democratic ticket: Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York.

The process feels similar at times, but the goal of a primary election is different from the race voters will decide in November. Our endorsement also is different. We will judge the candidates in this fall's general election when that time comes.

Obama could certainly become one of those candidates in the days ahead - at the time of this writing, his mathematical advantage is considerable. His appeal also is clear, and his campaign has been strong.

But Clinton is the strongest Democratic candidate for South Dakota.

Her mastery of complex policy detail is broad and deep, and her experience as a senator and former first lady matches that.

Measured against her opponent, Clinton is philosophically more moderate. That is likely a good thing for South Dakota.

Clinton's energy policy is forward thinking and wise. She advocates a broad federal research initiative to help solve our looming oil crisis. It's a plan that would join university researchers, private industry and individual inventors behind a common goal.

Is ethanol part of the answer? Clinton believes it is but not necessarily corn ethanol.

That is not precisely the answer South Dakota wants to hear. Corn-based ethanol has been a boon for farmers here. But the simple fact is that she probably is correct. Advances in cellulosic ethanol technologies could render corn ethanol obsolete and wasteful. Happily, South Dakota is poised to be a major player in the push to experiment with other kinds of ethanol.

Clinton has demonstrated a real commitment to Native American issues and will have visited several South Dakota reservations before the race is over. Clinton is precisely correct when she says that people outside the region have a poor understanding of the troubling trends on our reservations. Federal attention could help. That includes but is not limited to higher-ranking posts in the federal bureaucracy.

Her truly universal health care plan would be welcomed by thousands of South Dakotans. Even on reservations, where health care is nominally universal already, such a plan would be welcome. The federal government would never be allowed to subject everyday Americans to the kind of care Native Americans living on reservations routinely receive.

Obama is justifiably credited as a powerful speaker, but Clinton holds her own easily. As those who have attended her South Dakota rallies can attest, she is quick on her feet and energetic. She frames her ideas clearly in speeches and answers questions with genuine directness.

Her resilience and determination never should be questioned. She has met or overcome every challenge or roadblock in her way, and there have been many. Her determination to carry the nomination process through to its real conclusion has perhaps earned her a grudging respect from those who would never support her.

Clinton might not win this race. In fact, it's a long shot. But whatever some might say, the race is not over, and her name is on the ballot. Win or lose, she's also the best Democratic candidate for South Dakota.

Has the Media Lost Its Collective Mind in Trying to Force Clinton Out?

Photo credits: AP

You have to wonder if the media – the MSM and the blogosphere combined – has lost its collective mind.

Here’s the non-story in a nutshell for those who have been on another planet for the past two days: in her comments during an interview Friday with the editorial board of the Argus Leader in South Dakota, Hillary Clinton mentioned two prior Democratic campaigns that went on until June: RFK’s in 1968 and Bill Clinton’s in 1992. Her point, as I’ve now posted three times here at Katalusis, was that a Democratic primary running into June was not unprecedented.

The uproar has since been unabated. One expects the Huffington Post to jump on every word Clinton says, twist it beyond recognition, and spread it in 3-inch red letters in a banner headline on the homepage, accompanied by the most garish photo of Clinton its editorial staff can find.

But the Washington Post, the NY Times, the LA Times, The Associated Press… all trying to outdo one another with warmed over analyses of yesterday’s shabby tabloid reports?

What does it take to jar the media into responsible journalism?

So far the Clinton campaign has published a clarification in response to the Obama camp’s immediate farfetched interpretation of her remarks; Clinton followed up the earlier clarification with a personal statement, including an apology; a member of the Argus Leader editorial board in South Dakota supported Clinton by putting her remarks in context; and RFK’s son, Robert Kennedy, Jr., has spoken out on her behalf.

Still the boys in the press, along with their codependent female allies, keep pouring gasoline on the flames. You have to conclude that even though they’ve declared Obama the presumptuous nominee for weeks now, his devoted supporters are so threatened by Clinton’s presence in the campaign, they compulsively do whatever they believe it will take to force her out.

But despite their best efforts, the uppity Hillary has had the gall, not only to keep running, but to keep winning. Since March, she’s won Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Indiana with blowouts in West Virginia, and Kentucky; Obama has won North Carolina and Oregon.

At the moment, she’s campaigning in Puerto Rico where she’s expected to score another major victory. Rumor has it she’s getting her message out with batucada percussion ensembles and mobile loudspeakers playing reggaeton chants.

Go Hillary!

In Latest Attack on Clinton, Obama’s “Good Faith” Turns up Missing

Update:

Must-reads on Hilary’s RFK comment by Riverdaughter:

Two More Thoughts on RFK/1968

Where Was Arianna in 1968?

RFK and the 1968 Primary

*****

In yesterday’s post, I let the media have it for its sensationalized tabloid coverage of Hillary Clinton’s remarks during an interview with the editorial board of the Argus Leader, but I neglected to confront the Obama camp for its ridiculous response to her mention of RFK. As noted earlier, Clinton was simply reminding people the duration of the 2008 Democratic primary was not without precedence by mentioning two earlier campaigns that extended into June: RFK’s in 1968 and Bill Clinton’s in 1992.

ABC’s Teddy Davis And Talal Al-Khatib with Eloise Harper challenge the Obama team’s over-reaction in their article this morning, suggesting that Obama is not living up to his self-described image as the harbinger of the “new” politics.

The article begins:

“Ending the "smallness of our politics" is the stated mission of Barack Obama's White House run.

“In ‘The Audacity of Hope,’ Obama recalls how he softened his website's harsh rhetoric on abortion in 2004 after he received an email from a pro-life doctor.

‘“[T]hat night, before I went to bed,’ wrote Obama, ‘I said a prayer of my own -- that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.’

“No such ‘presumption of good faith’ was extended to Hillary Clinton on Friday.”’

Read More.

Kudos to ABC for an article that puts this entire incident in perspective and reminds us of the concept of “good faith” that too often gets thrown by the wayside in the heat of a political campaign.