纽约时报如何点评民主党候选人

wuliumu

民主党预选的选择：希拉里
     
    对民主党来说，这个时候一般是他们努力对竞选产生兴趣，看看哪位候选人能够从让人不痛不痒的一群中胜出。这次选举与以往的选举有天壤之别。
         
    早先的预选推出了两位强势的竞争对手：希拉里·克林顿，绝顶聪明但是常常出口伤人的纽约州的参议员和巴拉克·奥巴马，炽手可热但是仍未定型的伊利诺斯州的参议员。另外一位候选人是约翰．爱德华兹，他不加修饰的民粹主义使得这一竞选十分热闹。
     
    当民主党期待2月5日在许多人口众多的州的预选时，《纽约时报》的编辑部强烈推荐人们选择希拉里·克林顿作为他们20008年总统大选的候选人。     
     
    我们欣赏爱德华兹怒发冲冠的讲演，但我们不能支持他的当选。这位北卡罗来纳州的前参议员否定了许多他以前的立场和许多他以前在参议院的表决，以至于我们都不能确信他的立场是什么。我们也不能接受他可以阻止全球化的理念。
     
     选择克林顿夫人并不表示我们否认奥巴马的感召和天赋。美国一个大的政党可以首次提名一个黑人做总统候选人的确令人振奋，首次提名一位女性做总统候选人同样令人振奋。不过，“首次”并不是选择的理由。两位候选人，特别是克林顿夫人，常常提到不要选错人，给他们的竞选蒙上了阴影。
        
     克林顿夫人与奥巴马先生都会重振重建美国的全球形象，布什总统在这方面的破坏可以说无以复加。他们矢志改变的不仅仅是美国的形象，而且是美国在世界上的作用。
         
     在主要议题上，两位候选人之间没有鸿沟。他们承诺结束对伊拉克战争，推行更加公平的税制，提高政府支出的效益，更加关注社会问题，恢复公民自由，结束乔治·布什和卡尔·罗夫玩弄的政治***把戏。
     
    奥巴马先生会围绕“变革”开展一个令人振奋的竞选运动，但是他并不能垄断如果修复美国治理的方案。克林顿夫人偶尔也会过于夸大其经历。但是，当听着她对总统的职位、对政策和对美国重大问题的解决方案，我们深深地被她的知识的深度、智慧的力量和她广泛的阅历所折服。
     
    在布什不称职地任职七年后，任何民主党人都得面对他或她是否适合成为武装部队总司令的这一更为严峻的质疑，尽管这是不公平的。克林顿夫人已经打消了这样的顾虑。她在参议院多年，对国家安全问提了如指掌，赢得世界领袖和美国军方许多人士的尊敬。她将会是一个称职的总司令。
        
    在国内，希拉里处理了很多复杂的问题，有时失败了。她表现了学习和改革的意愿。她目前关于医保的方案反映了与她的第一个臭名昭著、惨遭失败的的医保方案的变化。她现在清楚，强大的利益集团不能被置之度外。她了解所有的美国人都应该获得医保——但是应该允许他们选择自己的医保，包括保留目前的医保的计划。奥巴马先生也许也能处理这样的问题，但是我们还没有看到他的具体方案。选民不仅要判断候选人的承诺，也要了解目前的状况。
     
    政要换代的可能性让奥巴马的听众欣喜若狂，而且他不仅仅只有修辞的天分。奥巴马向他的选民展示了他理解选民是多么渴望与布什岁月一刀两断，多么期待领袖风采、远见和真正的两党合作。我们也对此抱有热望。但是我们需要更多的细节去了解他所承诺的模糊的大多数人的治理，和他究竟会如何去治理这个国家。
     
    奥巴马成为伟大总统的潜力是诱人的，但是，这个国家面临着巨大的问题，而且将会面临许多我们无法预见的问题。新总统面临的挑战需要即可处理，而处理这些问题需要具体的方案、决心和让政府顺利运行的能力。在目前来看，克林顿夫人更有资格。
     
    我们反对布什出兵伊拉克，我们也不反对克林顿夫人对使用武力决议投出的赞成票。这个已不是眼下的话题。现在所要做的是如何结束战争。克林顿夫人似乎比奥巴马更清楚撤军会带来什么后果，如何通过外交和军事途径去控制美国部队撤离之后在伊拉克出现的混乱。
     
    在国内政策上，两位候选人的选择相差无几：把财政收入更多地转向美国的低收入和中产阶级，扩大医保的覆盖面。克林顿夫人甚至在纠正布什的“不让一个孩子落伍”的教育政策的不足之处也有了好的方案。
        
    奥巴马先生在更多地谈论布什政府对于公民自由、法治和权力制衡的侵犯。克林顿夫人也关注如何解决这些问题，但是，她更有能力发现政府权力在哪里、是怎样和多久被滥用――以及现在如何纠正这些错误。
     
    当我们坚定地支持克林顿夫人时，我们也敦促克林顿夫人率先改变选战的方式。她目前的竞选方法于国家不利，于民主党不利，于克林顿夫人不利。可能是因为她先生的执政和所谓的继续竞选造成的民众厌恶有关，克林顿夫人总被看成是制造***的候选人（确实，比尔·克林顿过火的话语给选民的反感火上浇油。如果他持续如此，可能会对她的竞选造成长久的损害）。

     
    我们知道她有团结与领导的能力。我们看到她2000年在纽约的大城小市竞选，其中有些地方是以糟蹋克林顿为乐的地方。她赢得了那些犹豫不决的选民的支持，当选后兑现乐她的承诺，并在2006年再次顺利当选。
     
    克林顿夫人现在必须对更多的选民做同样的事情。她必须向美利坚的选民展示她倾听和领导的能力，尽管她无法如2000年那样一城一市的说服选民。
     
    我们在2006年支持克林顿夫人因为我们确信她还会是一位优秀的参议员。自从她展示乐更大的雄心，我们一直纳闷她是否能够展示出国家领袖的风范。
     
    她的观点，她在新罕布什州的反败为胜，在内华达州的杰出表现，她不仅在阐述政策更是在解释自己时所展示的新的开放，她的坚韧而巨大的智慧都使我们相信她可以领导我们这个国家。如果民主党想夺回白宫，她将是最好的选择。
   
查阅本站为帮助读者了解美国2008大选推出的专稿：
     
    追踪美国大选（I）1月21日至2月7日、追踪美国大选（II）2月7日－2月29日、“美国总统、总统选举和政党政治”、关中人：开场即惊心动魄的2008年美国大选 、斯坦福大学研究员：巴拉克·奥巴马有魅力没“理念” 、 关中人：911改变美国青年 美国青年改变美国政治、让奥巴马迈向白宫的演讲：希望就是勇气，希望就是力量 、巴拉克·奥巴马：今晚，此刻，我们相信、关中人：猜测奥巴马的中国政策、亚裔人支持克林顿 媒体影射其种族歧视、吕芳：从08大选看美国社会的族群***、纽约时报如何盘点共和党候选人。

英文原文：

Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton (New York Times editorial, January 25, 2008)

    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.