Where I Stand:

Brian Greenspun urges voters to choose realistically

Sunday, Jan. 13, 2008 | 2 a.m.

Look out Nevada, the world is coming to town.

For the next week, our state will be the focus of the entire country, if not the world. For it is here that the Democrats may well decide to support Sen. Barack Obama or to choose a much wiser course by confirming what New Hampshire voters instinctively knew and what most Nevadans have understood for a long time, that Sen. Hillary Clinton will make an excellent president of the United States.

It is ironic that Nevada is in this place at this time, for it wasn’t that long ago that the national and even much of the local media scoffed at Nevada’s senior senator, Harry Reid, when he pushed the idea of a Nevada caucus so early in the process. His argument was that Nevadans were a far more relevant test of the United States as a whole than either Iowa or New Hampshire could ever hope to be. And he was right. Here we are with the keys to the Democratic nomination in our hands because a clear winner in Nevada could well be the favorite to sweep the table.

It is even more ironic that this state, known for indulging every little fantasy of its more than 40 million visitors each year, is now the one state that can provide a huge dose of reality to the most important event of our time — the election of the next president of the United States.

So while everyone else is whooping and hollering, while union leaders are making decisions for their members often in spite of their members’ wishes and while the national media are fanning the flames of the ratings game for their benefit, not the voters’, Nevadans should step back a little and take the next few days to consider the candidates and recognize the momentousness of the decision they will make Jan. 19.

Speaking of fantasies, consider this:

The United States is in a most unpopular and losing war. Washington is divided to the point that neither the president nor the Congress can boast approval ratings worthy of discussion. Young people are disillusioned and passionate and the older ones are just disillusioned, and each for different reasons. No one feels good about himself or the direction in which our country is going. And the Democrats should have a leg up for the White House because the Republican incumbent is very unpopular and just can’t get things right.

Sound familiar?

Here’s some more of that fantasy. The Democratic front-runner implodes early in the primaries and out of the chaos emerges a liberal, anti-war candidate who promises change. He captures the Democrats’ imagination long enough to become their choice for the presidency.

OK, this isn’t a fantasy. It is more akin to a nightmare. And it isn’t 2008 that I am talking about.

The year was 1972 and the candidate was Sen. George McGovern. He faced President Richard Nixon, who used words like “amnesty” and “abortion” to describe his opponent’s policies. The Democrats were all ready to win. They didn’t. It wasn’t even close. Nixon won reelection and McGovern won one state Massachusetts.

The reality was that Democrats allowed themselves to be overwhelmed by emotion and hype and confusion, and chose badly. They let their chance for the White House go down in the flames of a miserably devastating loss.

And that wasn’t the only time. Democrats have an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, for all kinds of good and bad reasons, more times than not. Remember 2004? 2000? 1988? Oh well, you get the point.

As a matter of full disclosure, I am an unabashed supporter and friend of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s. But I am also an American citizen who believes the country needs a major change in almost all things it does politically. Change is coming George Bush will no longer be president. He cannot run again. George Bush not being in the White House is a most significant change that will occur in January 2009. And when was the last time you heard of a woman winning a primary election to be the president of the United States? How’s that for change?

But there are no certainties in politics. We live in a very dangerous world. Say what you want and believe as you will, but there are still thousands, maybe millions, of people out there who want Americans and what we stand for destroyed. And there is an economy teetering on the brink of something very serious that needs to be fixed immediately. There are people in the middle class who used to believe they could grow upward but are being continually pushed downward, and there are millions of others who have just given up.

Nevadans will have the opportunity Jan. 19 to choose a Democrat who can best lead us through the unbelievable mess into which we have gotten ourselves. Yes, we need to change the way the Bush White House has run this country and, yes, we need to change the way people feel about themselves and their prospects for the future. But we need to meet that challenge of change in a responsible way.

And my belief is that if this country elects a Republican in 2008 there will be no change in the way things are being done in the Bush administration. Maybe around the edges, but not where it counts.

The danger is that the Democrats could put up a candidate who they think can win but who, in the long run, can’t. Remember McGovern? Remember John Kerry?

I am not saying that Sen. Obama can’t win, but I am saying that I know Sen. Clinton. I know she was in Fallon when no one else could even place that town on a map, trying to solve a cancer cluster mystery. I know when it was time for the Senate to stand up and be counted on Nevada’s side in its fight against President Bush’s decision to put the Yucca Mountain dump site in full gear, Hillary Clinton was with us at great political risk to herself. And I know whenever it has been time to fight for single moms and working moms and children, Hillary has always been there. Do we know as much about anybody else?

We need to ask the tough questions and wait for the answers before we rush to judgment. And we need to go into this process knowing that we owe it to ourselves and our country to take a breath and step back long enough to make sure the questions are answered. And we are perfectly capable of asking them ourselves.

Cable news pundits, union bosses and others who have agendas that may not match those of Nevadans will tell us what we should think and how we should vote. But, in the end, this will be a Nevada decision, made by and for those of us who live here, work here and call this home.

I will probably give my somewhat biased yet well-informed opinion of who I believe is best for the job later in the process (bet you can’t figure out which lady that will be) but I will not be presumptuous enough to think I know all the answers. Each person who has a stake in the future of this country must reach his or her own conclusion.

The next week will put Nevadans in the spotlight, so we need to treat this as if it is the most important decision we will ever make. The odds are very high that it will be.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

Discussion: 10 comments so far…

By Hope

1/13/08 at 5:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Baloney! A Clinton nomination will give us four more years of the GOP. Put this piece at the bottom of the birdcage where it belongs.
By Knowzitall

1/13/08 at 6:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Brian, we all know you take your marching orders from Harry Reid and Tom Collins and are buddies with the Clinton's, but you are also a silver spooned limousine liberal who has never had the challenges normal people do. You and Janie are clueless as to what confronts regular folks each day.

Tell us exactly what your friends Hillary has ever accomplished in some 35 years in public life?

Your friend Bill promised us 'the most ethical administration in history' Remember that?

Fell a bit short there, didn't he?

She's yesterday, and any other choice is tomorrow.
By CHernan

1/13/08 at 8:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

A Clinton nomination will give us four or eight years of the same prosperity we had under President Clinton. That's the kind of change I want!
By BringtheRain

1/13/08 at 9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

The CNN exit poll from New Hampshire said that 57% of people who voted for Hillary Clinton would have instead voted for Bill Clinton if he had been on the ballot. Those numbers were in the 20s/30s for the other Democratic candidates.

Who, exactly, is voting realistically?
By bigteeny

1/13/08 at 10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Again, your bias makes this paper's opinion almost laughable. You keep referencing Hillary's experience. To my knowledge, prior to being a Senator, she never held an elected office. First Lady certainly cannot be claimed as experience since she could not be held accountable by voters. She could say anything and as long as Bill was President, she had a platform.

It is also regrettable that you would use the same scare tactics we see from our current administration - using Nixon/McGovern and Bush/Kerry as examples. SHAMEFUL!!

As a former Nevada, and current Illinois resident, who lives near Hillary's hometown and has met Obama on numerous occasions, I think I have a unique perspective. I have witnessed the unseemly attacks on Obama - intentionally misconstruing voting records, filing lawsuits after not receiving a valuable endorsement, the not-so-subtle dig at Kerry you wrote about (I'm sure he would have been a thoughtful patriot had he endorsed Hillary).

While I think she could be an effective President, I believe she is not the person Obama is - strength, character or otherwise. You certainly have the opportunity to suggest who you think should be the Democratic nominee, but to suggest that those who have endorsed Obama are only doing so for themselves and not for what/who they think is right is incredibly short-sighted and virtually says that union members are lemmings and will not stand up to union bosses if they go in a direction that opposes the general membership's ideas.

I won't tell anyone to vote for anyone. Vote your conscience. It is clear that we need change from the mess we have now. Who is better suited to bring about that change? Use the facts to make a decision, not what someone wants to feed you.
By kindacurious

1/13/08 at 12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hillary is unethical and puts her own interests first. She gives women a bad name and is negative for the nation. The change this country needs most is unity not division that Hillary would continue.
By CynicalObserver

1/13/08 at 8:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

I note, with great interest, that almost all of the comments on Brian Greenspun's editorial are from the Obama camp.

The comment I like best is "I don't think you are one to give an unbiased opinion ARE YOU?"

That comment illustrates the average intellect of Obama supporters. Apparently the commenter, who self effacingly calls herself "God", apparently does not know that editorial pages of newspapers are not unbiased. She apparently does not know that as part of the benefit of owning a newspaper, one is able to show bias and endorse a candidate. Nowhere at Columbia University Journalism School, or at any of the other journalism schools in the U.S., do they teach a principle that editorial endorsements must be unbiased. Reasoned yes, but not unbiased.

So Mr. Greenspun, you've done a very workman like job writing your endorsement of Hillary Clinton. It's a tough job, defending someone who it is still politically correct to hate...an assertive, opinionated woman.

Just today, an intelligent young man told he that we would never vote for Hillary Clinton, because she's just like his mother. The other day, another older man told me he would never vote for Hillary Clinton, because she's just like his wife.

So they're drinking the Obama Kool Aide by the gallon out there in Las Vegas.

It's going to be heartbreaking to see what the Karl Rove cabal does to him if he's President and tries to get the Republicans in Congress to make nice and cooperate.
By LVer

1/13/08 at 9:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

For all those who are undecided between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, get informed.
Don't simply listen to others who have agendas. Here is a site that offers a lot of information about Obama
http://ochairball.blogspot.com/2008/01/e.... I'd also suggest you read "The Audacity of Hope."
By someofthesedays

1/18/08 at 7:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

I love that America's nomination process catapults local bigshots like Greenspun to prime time. Not because it challenges my snobby north-eastern preconceptions about the wisdom of America's heartland, but because it confirms them. Anyone who saw the December Des Moines Register debates saw Carolyn Washburn (I think that's her name; how quickly we forget) make a fool of herself in front of the candidates, the audience, and the small part of the nation that watched. Now, because a website with a national audience linked to this article, I get to read this.

Savor the language: from that dynamite, not pathetically cliched at all lead ("Look out Nevada, the world is coming to town"!!!!!! OH BOY!!!); to the elegant description of "a most unpopular and losing war;" to the completely parallel construction "I am not saying that Sen. Obama can’t win, but I am saying that I know Sen. Clinton" (because I wasn't worried about electing a president who could effect change, I wanted someone who this guy knows). And that's not even bothering to savor the logic of the fatuous McGovern-Obama analogy. I mean, since McGovern wasn't running against an incumbent who presided over a thriving economy, the analogy makes complete sense! And look at how humble the author is about his relationship with his "friend" Senator Clinton. And he doesn't even bother to reflect on how obvious it is that they are about as close friends as he is with a tissue, and that their relationship is about the same. It's all gold.

Sorry, I have to go back to studying so that I can get a degree and never end up like this guy.

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question