Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Credit: FILE PHOTO

In this strangest of presidential campaigns, New York
Republicans and Democrats get to help pick their party’s candidate in the April
19 primaries.

Republicans have unpalatable options: two candidates with
terrifying views and a third who sounds reasonable only by comparison.

For Democrats, the choice is the opposite: between two
rational, experienced, progressive candidates, either of whom – under the right
circumstances – could be a strong president, helping the country meet its
enormous domestic and international challenges.

None of the Republicans deserves our endorsement. But the
Democratic Primary decision is a difficult one. Our staff here is divided, so
as editor, I’m writing the endorsement this week, and we’ll have a dissent from
some of our other writers next week.

If I based my decision solely on positions, the endorsement
would be for Bernie Sanders. He has laid out strong, commendable positions, not
only on health care and public-college affordability but also on climate
change, the Middle East, defense spending, national security, infrastructure
investment, and much more. And it is significant that he is inspiring more
young voters than Clinton is.

Hillary Clinton’s negatives – her stands on the Iraq war,
crime and welfare reform, trade agreements; her endorsement of the death
penalty for (“particularly heinous”) federal crimes; her more militaristic
instincts; her ties to the financial industry – are enormous concerns.

Also a concern: the arrogance and sense of entitlement –
Clinton’s and the Democratic Party leadership’s. Clinton’s tone-deaf response to questions about her Wall Street speeches are the
kind of insider, elitist behavior that the general public is rebelling against.

Neither Clinton nor Sanders would be able to work miracles
as president, but given her record and her ties to big-business interests,
there’s a risk that Clinton will compromise when she doesn’t need to and
shouldn’t.

Given all that, why endorse her? First, she has important strengths,
including her broad government service. Particularly important is her foreign
policy knowledge and experience, which the country badly needs in this
complicated, dangerous time. Clinton’s depth – including her experience dealing
with some of the most difficult decisions a presidential administration faces –
dwarfs that of every other candidate, including Sanders.

Nor are all of Clinton’s positions weak. She says she will
push for campaign finance reform, gun control, criminal justice reform, and an
increase in the minimum wage. She has a long, solid record advocating for
women, children, and the poor. Her strong, deep support among African Americans
– including among some long-time civil rights leaders – is an indication of her
commitment to racial minorities.

And Sanders isn’t perfect. Taking progressive positions is
one thing. Being able to get members of Congress to support you is quite
another, and there, Sanders’ record is thin. In addition, many liberal
economists have concluded that his numbers – on how he would finance
single-payer health care, free public colleges, and infrastructure investment,
for instance – don’t add up.

The biggest concern, though, is this: Democrats need to
nominate the person who has the best chance to win the general election, and
who will best be able to get things done as president.

Bernie Sanders is doing well in national polls at this
point. And he has strong favorable ratings. Clinton, on the other hand, has
strong unfavorable ones. But national polls aren’t terribly reliable right now;
the national campaign hasn’t started. And if Sanders is the nominee, the
Republicans will unleash a firestorm of attacks, painting him as a tax-loving
extremist, a socialist, a communist in disguise.

Sanders will look particularly weak if Republicans nominate
someone other than Donald Trump. A contested convention looks increasingly
likely, and a less extremist party savior – John Kasich, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan – could seem more palatable to many Americans than
Sanders.

Many liberals – Democrats and independents alike – are
embracing Sanders’ message. But regrettably, we are not the majority of
Americans. We do not have the majority in Congress. While the country has come
a long way on issues like same-sex marriage and health-care reform, the country
is not yet where Bernie Sanders is, philosophically.

Sanders promises that if he is elected, he will lead a
revolution and bring about change. But historically in this country, big change
has come slowly. And a president is not a dictator. Whichever Democrat is
elected will have to have the support of enough senators and representatives to
bring about the changes that many of us want. He or she will have to bring
Congress and the rest of the country along.

Even the least extreme Republican running for president
right now (or waiting in the wings for a convention draft) would try to undo
Barack Obama’s remarkable progress in health care reform and climate change,
continue the erosion of women’s reproductive rights, reverse Obama’s temperate approach
to foreign policy, and escalate the country’s economic inequality and its march
toward oligarchy. And a Republican president would appoint at least one Supreme
Court justice, probably more than one.

A Republican president would have to have cooperation from
Congress, but it seems likely that if Republicans win the White House, they’ll
keep control of both the Senate and the House. It is critically important,
then, for a Democrat to succeed Barack Obama as president – and that the
Democratic nominee help other Democratic candidates –
moderates and liberals – win a majority in the Senate.

Hillary Clinton has a better chance to do that.

Clinton isn’t the candidate I hoped for. And I wish the
country were ready for Bernie Sanders. I wish that if he were elected he could
bring about the change he and so many of us want. But this country is a
democracy. The voters in this country are not yet where Bernie Sanders is, much
as I wish they were. And Susan Sarandon – God help us – to the contrary, we
won’t pull it there by electing Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or John Kasich. Nor,
sadly, will we pull it there by electing Sanders.

Next week: City writers’
dissent. And we encourage your own comments.

This article appears in Apr 6-12, 2016.

Mary Anna Towler is a transplant from the Southern Appalachians and is editor, co-publisher, and co-founder of City. She is happy to have converted a shy but opinionated childhood into an adult job. She...

26 replies on “A reluctant endorsement for Hillary Clinton”

  1. “But this country is a democracy”. What country are you talking about? America was founded as a Republic, as I’m sure most of hillary’s fans learned in history class. (HA HA)

  4. If Bernie is not on the ballot, I will vote for Jill Stein because my list of reasons not to vote for Hillary keeps growing.

  5. An advocate for minority rights would never support for-profit prisons, the classification of marijuana as a Class 1 drug (as dangerous as heroin), and the three-strikes ruling. Clinton’s campaign is financed by pharmaceutical lobbyists, fossil fuel lobbyists, Wall Street Banks, for-profit prisons, and many more. How can anyone believe she will get anything done when she will owe all of the above for their financial support?

  6. I’m shocked and disappointed that you are endorsing Hillary Clinton–and using the flimsiest of all arguments: that she is the most electable. There are so many negatives about her–the stench of scandal, Iraq War, money diverted to the Clinton Foundation, her backpedaling on every issue that she’s come out in favor of, i.e. gay rights, and most recently the $15/hr. minimum wage. What good is foreign policy experience if you show the poorest judgement ever in making decisions? Nothing at all will ever change with Hillary Clinton.
    I really expected more from City.

  7. Nice work with this well-reasoned, accurate assessment of our country’s current situation. I too feel that Clinton must be our choice, although I have fewer misgivings than you do. She’s a smarty, has noticed how we’ve embraced many of Sanders’ ideas, will continue to notice, and, I hope and trust, will keep them in mind as she makes what changes she can. She has a lot to prove, and seems ready to rise to that challenge. I expect her to be a better President than most are expecting.

  8. First, I take exception to comments here, and in FB sharing of Mary Anna’s editorial, that question her motives. Usually in private, on occasion in public, I have complained about what I observed to be her paternalistic tendency to shush legitimate indignation about abuses of power, excess entitlement, and insularity on the part of self selected Democratic party “elites.” This is particularly true at the local level, in a community with seriously broken civic and political institutions. I’m hardly a Mary Anna shill.

    One expects a bit more spunk from an alternative newspaper, but there has been a rightward drift by “alternative” press across the country since the 1970s. There are reasons for it. Moreover, a close examination of Publisher Towler’s career in Rochester journalism and politics, reveals a sensibility evident in her editorial. Recall her service as a delegate for Jimmy Carter in 1976 (the “pragmatic” centrist choice in a field of liberals), her frequent defense or white washing of closed processes in local party affairs, her defense of de-democratization/privatization of public schools, and her finger wagging advocacy of a blatantly undemocratic mayoral selection process in 2011 (a vigorous contest would scare off developers, Ms. Towler explained). Her editorial endorsements in local Democratic primaries often leave the impression she thinks we are selecting a prom court.

    I do not review this to assail her personally. She is a gracious and civil woman, and a talented businessperson. Never the less, the editorial was signed, and I believe it is consistent with a well intended, well established, misguided approach.

    The endorsement editorial made the case for Sanders, and against Clinton, quite eloquently. I could not put it better (I might throw in Clinton’s support for privatizing prisons). Nobody disputes Clinton’s experience. Nobody disputed James Buchanan’s experience. The heart of Mary Anna’s argument is: Sanders supporters, we agree about practically everything, but it is hopeless. Settle.

    Don’t single Mary Anna out. Rolling Stone made the same case. My brother, who is more liberal than I am, makes this case.

    This participation in one’s own oppression is the result of decades of watching Right Wing bullying seem to carry the day. I’m sure this shapes Hillary’s more limited view of what is possible. I have every sympathy for these people, but they are making a tragic error. Give up what you believe, so you can win. Then, when you don’t win, you are told you didn’t give up enough. To Hell with that.

    I am not among those who claim Hillary is the Devil. Over the top attacks on her have helped her more than hurt. I appreciate her. I’m not voting for Trump or Cruz or GOP mystery meat in November. This is a dispute among friends, and been a remarkably civil contest.

    The heart of the dispute is about what is possible. I think the actual evidence favors Sanders. Yes, McGovern lost 49 states half a century ago, more due to aberrations: Eagleton & the Wallace shooting — than ideology. The Mondale/Ferarro exercise in establishment caution and identity politics also lost 49 states, more recently. The 1990s are over. The Clinton GOP Lite approach has only yielded a more militant, shameless, and corrupt American Right wing. That approach has produced 3 GOP landslides in 1994, 2010, and 2014. Obama won twice by expanding the electorate, and capturing the young (and young at heart).

    For months polls have show Sanders far out performing Clinton in November match-ups. Clinton will not win big. Sanders might, in an era where establishment insensitivity (both parties) to the the yanked away ladder of upward mobility in America is reaching critical mass. In light of all this, it simply does not due to say: Yes, but you know the GOP will smear him (They smear everybody: Swiftboating, Birtherism). This is a democracy, so give up fighting for what you believe, even in the face of compelling evidence the public agrees with you.

    This contest will continue in the Democratic party, whatever the 2016 outcome. It will play out at the state, local, and national levels. It will be between the limited, more cynical view of what is possible, perhaps held by more tired people, who are more concerned about their own comfort and status — and people who know that is indeed a democracy, and the primary is exactly the right time to defend your values and beliefs.

  9. If Clinton receives the nomination, I will vote for her. I will then leave the party, for I am not a neoconservative.

  10. Headline: “Democratic” Pragmatist reluctantly endorses neoconservative, corrupt, millionaire. #notmeus #berniesanders

  11. Thank you for a thoughtful analysis. America is balanced on the edge of catastrophe in many ways and Hillary is the only candidate who might be able to back us away from the cliff.. Now is not the time for on-the-job training (Sanders) or for an evil dictator (any GOP candidate). I’m sorry that there isn’t a viable candidate on the GOP field, as that would make this election more interesting, but we have to work with what we’ve got.

  12. With Trump, you can watch, wait, and hope for a transition from masterful campaigner to equally superior president. Lately, I think, all but the most entranced are realizing that they’re just watching a magic show.

    Sanders, on the other hand, is different than Trump. He’s the real deal. His devotees will not be showing up on election day to vote for somebody else. Then it’s true that Sanders is killing Hillary’s chances. If it was owed to her in 2008, then it’s REALLY owed to her now. How dare he!

  13. “using the flimsiest of all arguments: that she is the most electable”

    So electability is of no concern? What would you think of President Trump or President Cruz? If electability of the Democrat candidate is ignored, that’s what we might get! I’m not saying that Sanders would have NO chance against either Trump or Cruz, but it’s much more likely that he would lose to either one than Clinton would lose.

  14. This is hard, really hard. But no; Hillary is not the best candidate.
    .
    Nothing Trump proposes is different – except by degree – from anything that’s happening in this country and has been building for years. The 10% have the 90% divided and fighting among themselves and that won’t change until a majority of the 90% realize we’re in this together and stand together.
    .
    There is precedent back to Biblical Egypt that people don’t turn away from an oppressive system until they finally accept that the system doesn’t work for them.
    .
    If Trump is elected the 90% continue to get less and less and Trump thumbs his nose at us. If Hillary gets elected the 90% get an illusionary increase the 10% take back in tax breaks for themselves. Either way, the Red states and religious right continue to gerrymander and the system has no problem with it; it’s all the same to the 10%.
    .
    In the Bible plague after plague descended on Egypt and Pharaoh “saved” the (enslaved) people of Israel from them. Until finally the last plague and the worst of all and the people realized that Pharaoh could not and would not save the people and they opted for a new system.
    .
    We need a new system. My hope and prayer is we’ve had enough of this one and we’ll opt for a new system. Bernie Sanders is a prophet with a vision that there is a better system, one we control as opposed to the one that controls us. I hope and pray things are bad enough now that enough of us are willing to escape the system.
    .
    If not, maybe instead of a false sense of security of Hillary slowing slightly the decline to our certain demise Trump’s “in [y}our face antics will finally scare us to escape this system, assuming we ever get another chance.
    .
    We can’t in good conscience or good sense vote for Hillary. A vote for Hillary won’t save us. It will be the demise of the poorest and most oppressed among us and simply delay the inevitable for the rest of us.

  15. I’m going to be out of town on primary day and have already voted for Senator Sanders. That said, if, as seems likely, Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I am going to be a big supporter. More than anything else, though, I want to beg people to not think about this primary in “us vs. them” terms: leave that to Fox News, they’ve been doing it for years.

    As for abstaining or voting for Jill Stein in the general, if you’re in a “safe” state then go for it, but if there is any chance that your vote will contribute to a Trump or Cruz presidency please think about the people who may be hurt. I remember the same arguments being made in 2000 and they brought us George W. Bush, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito, and those choices brought us Citizens United, voter ID laws, and and a corruption of our political processes that will, at best, take decades to reverse. A federal government in which today’s Republican party effectively controls the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches will have ramifications long past the next election cycle.

    There is a real difference between the candidates of the two parties and, perhaps more importantly, there is a huge difference between the coalitions that support those parties. My choice this year was to vote my conscience in the primary and support Bernie Sanders. In the general election I will vote my conscience again,and support the Democratic nominee. It’s not about “me” and it’s not about “you”: it’s about casting a vote to protect and support our most vulnerable citizens, our environment, and our political institutions.

  16. “My choice this year was to vote my conscience in the primary and support Bernie Sanders. In the general election I will vote my conscience again, and support the Democratic nominee. It’s not about “me” and it’s not about “you”: “- Jim Mayer

    So your ” conscience” tells you that it’s OK for government to FORCIBLY take what has been honestly earned by one person and just GIVE it to another who freely decided not to work. Didn’t Abraham Lincoln abolish this stuff years ago?

    Yes, take care of the most vulnerable. (what, maybe 5-10% of us). The rest badly need some lessons on capitalism and what made America great to start with.

    So you hate the rich, who pay the majority of the taxes already, but you are willing to give up your freedom to some leftist politicians who can’t wait to exercise their power over you?

  18. In your “regretful” endorsement of Hillary Clinton, you listed many of her “negatives” – her vote for the Iraq war and for trade agreements, her endorsement of the death penalty, her militaristic instincts, and her ties to the financial industry. You did not mention, however, the inevitable Congressional obstructionism that will come with a Hillary presidency. Nor did you mention the taxpayer cost of the inevitable investigations which will ensue with her Presidency.

    The Republicans do not like Barack Obama. But the Republicans really do not like the Clintons!

    Here is a list of a few Clinton investigations: Travelgate (when the Clintons fired the entire Whitehouse travel office), The Whitewater Investigation (where 15 Clinton associates were convicted of 40 federal crimes), Filegate (where the Clintons were investigated for improperly requesting and receiving FBI background reports on other officials), Chinagate (when the Justice Department investigated Clinton campaign fundraising abuses and cover-ups regarding efforts by China to influence U.S. politics), Pardongate (where Bill Clinton pardoned billionaire Marc Rich – who funneled millions into Democratic campaigns – including Hillary’s senate campaign. Bill also pardoned felons who paid Hillary’s brother, Hugh Rodham, large legal fees.) Then there was Hillary’s Benghazi investigation and her “e-mail” investigation. But even before that, there was Cattlegate (Hillary’s first-ever $1,000 trade in cattle futures netted her a $100,000 gain).

    The New York Times called the Clinton Foundation “mired in conflicts of interest.” So a Clinton Presidency would result in every large donation to the Clinton Foundation raising suspicions and leading to non-stop investigations.

    Americans do not need four more years of obstructionism. We do not need the high price of relentless investigations. (The Whitewater investigation, alone, cost taxpayers $70 million dollars). We need a leader without scandals – who has never been tempted by the corrupting influence of power or money – one with integrity and a history of fighting for social and economic justice. We need Bernie Sanders as our next President.

  19. Yes, Hillary Clinton has foreign policy experience-but it consists of often doing the wrong things! As a Senator, she pushed for a blockade against Iran, which is considered an act of war. As Secretary of State, she personally made phone calls and pushed hard for drone attacks which sometimes ended up killing innocent people . Also while Secretary of State, she traveled the globe, pushing fracking on communities around the world. Bernie Sanders has a much better record, one of integrity and good judgement. Ms. Towler also stated that many liberal economists have concluded that Bernie’s numbers-on how he would finance singer-payer health care, free public college, etc-don’t add up. Which liberal economists? Does she mean the five who were quoted or interviewed in Jackie Calmes New York Times story on 2/15/16? Most of them are aligned with the Democratic Party establishment, which has a close financial relationship with the pharmaceutical and financial services industry. In the story, Ms. Calmes did not talk to any genuine “left-leaning economists” such as former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Richard Wolff of Democracy at Work and the New School for Social Research, or James Galbraith at the University of Texas, who all say that Bernie’s numbers do add up. It’s true that the Republicans would unleash a firestorm of attacks against Bernie, calling him a Socialist or Communist. But it would be simple for him to clear that up with facts. Not that that would stop them, I know. But they would have an absolute field day with Clinton, unleashing many more serious attacks on her. Some of them would be very hard for her to refute. Bernie has a long solid record of integrity, with zero scandals. Poll after poll shows that he could beat any of the Republicans by a wider margin than Hillary. So Democrats who want to keep Trump or Cruz out of the White House should keep that in mind.

  21. So this woman, who gets handsomely paid by the likes of Goldman-Sachs and other Wall Streeters, but won’t release the transcripts. She recently was guest at a private fundraiser in Colorado and her people used noise machines so reporters and outsiders couldn’t hear what she had to say. If she was saying the same thing privately as she does publicly, why hide it?

    Well, there’s one thing that can be concluded 100%.

    She’s lying to someone, and I doubt it’s to her financial backers.

  22. “the country is not yet where Bernie Sanders is, philosophically. “

    Workers unite! We must support our Komdrad Sanders for the glory of Socialism and the defeat of the evil capitalist system!…Oops. Did I say that out loud?

  25. I suggest a Clinton – Sanders ticket. Hillary has the experience to get things done and Bernie has the message and the urgency that we need.

    They would be the “odd-couple”, but maybe that is what we need. They would have to work together to compromise, for results, moving forward.

    “United we stand. Divided we fall.” (Aesop)
    ================================
    http://www.SavingSchools.org

  26. FYI – Wikipedia has an “Electoral History of Bernie Sanders” which you might find interesting. It shows that Sanders lost many elections, since 1972. You might see him as a loser, or you might see him as an experienced political fighter, who never gives up:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_hi…

    Again, I feel that Sanders should team up with Hillary. All the candidates have major flaws. But by coming together, they may be able to strengthen each other, for a “more perfect union.”

Comments are closed.