New York Times Endorses Clinton, McCain

The New York Times editorial board on Thursday endorsed Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain in their respective presidential nomination races. From the editorial endorsing Clinton:

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.

The Times' endorsement of McCain had a much different tone:

We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

The Times also notes, "Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? ... Mr. Giuliani's arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking."

Comments

[Rustyzipper]

Wonder how much money this "slumloard" gave Billary??

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22839654/

anyway to find out??
.

[LaBohemian]

Watch for HuffPo to now go on a tirade against editorial endorsements, like it did with political polling once the polling turned against its parent company, the Obama campaign.

[richard5]

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones because those stones might just boomerang right back into their glass windows. The Clintons have been attacking Obama about some guy in Chicago who had some alleged bad dealings only for a picture to suface showing the Clintons taking a pic with the same "Slum Lord"! How poetic.

[OneLiberalLady]

So, the New York Times endorsed Hillary? Just remember, they also endorsed the invasion of Iraq. They're not always right!

[Butai]

The NYT endorsements means a victory for the party(ies) that brought us war. Period end of story. The NYT is part of the war machine and thus must endorse McCain and the Clintons as they all will keep us there for many years to come no matter what they say, to feed the economic engine of WAR! This is a disgrace.

[getalife80]

The Clinton's are racists, get over it.

[flashlight]

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

-Barack Obama 2002

[We]

A UK perspective on JM ...

"Don't be fooled by the myth of John McCain. If we don't start warning that the Real McCain is not the Real McCoy, we might sleepwalk into four more years of Republican­ism."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-dont-be-fooled-by-the-myth-of-john-mccain-773072.html

[ConcernAmerican]

Obama SUPPORTED the ENERGY BILL.....h­e supports BUSH! He voted FOR it.....are you HAPPY now paying a gallon of gas close to $4.00?

Keep on smoking your joint and blow more coke!

[CivilLefty]

During a recent televised debate Billary brought up the Obama-Rezko "slumlord" connection, yet on todays Drudge Report there is a full color photo of the shameless "Lying King & Queen" Clintons standing and smiling next to Mr. Rezko. Billary now says she can't recall ever meeting Mr. Rezko the "slumlord". The Clintons are like an albatross around the Democratic Party, they will enable either McCain, or Romney to be the next American president.

[jpshotwheels]

MSM, NEW YORK TIMES, like I would trust them, aren't they the ones, that gave us Judith Miller, she spent how many months in jail because she wouldn't come forward with her sources to Protect the Whitehouse. Hello.

[SEQUOIABISON]

This endorsement is not a big surprise. Of course the Times would never reveal exactly why they endorsed two warmongers.

Basically the NY Times has become the Eastern version of the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. is a major proponent of Israel and supported the invasion of Iraq.

In the lead up to the Shock and Awe Bombardment of Iraq, who can forget the outright deceitful promotion of war on the front pages of their publication, thru the lies and innuendos of Judith Miller and Thomas Friedman.

So naturally they would endorse the two candidates that would guarantee a continuation of the war and they are hoping based on her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that Hillary will expand the war to Iran.

Either McCain or Hillary will continue to allow Israel to imprison their neighbors the Palestinians, in a Warsaw Ghetto like concentration camp.

The NY Times is also hoping these one sided pro Israel candidates if elected, will also allow the Israeli army to continue their imperialistic manifest destiny of conquering and settling upon what they consider Judean (Jewish) biblical land.

This once great newspaper, this bastion of liberal progressive ideals when it came to civil rights in America and Southeast Asia, has prostituted itself, lost its creditability when it comes to being fair and balanced about the problems of he Middle East.

Obama you make me proud to be an American again, and if it helps any to offset this monumental endorsement from what has become a tabloid rag sheet of yellow journalism, a newspaper to wrap fish in, you have my endorsement my vote and my financial support.

Thank you Barack for restoring my enthusiasm in politics again, but I fear all this swiftboating of your campaign will steal the nomination from you and drive me into complacency again.

[jackpinesavage]

I have an open questions for supporters of Sen Clinton:

If the esteemed Senator already has all these years of experience and is ready to lead "from day one", then why didn't she run in 2004? I mean, we're supposed to vote for her because she can stand up to the Republican smear machine and she represents workable change...s­o where was she when we needed a strong Democratic candidate to knock our Dear Leader off the throne? Was it because she didn't think she could beat Bush? Or was it because they are such fast friends and she didn't want to step on his toes?

I'll be patiently awaiting the articulate, well thought answers from the Clintonist­as...

[ALMAL]

If OBAMA supporters can't forgive Bill Clintons adultery after 10 years,what can you expect now

[ConcernAmerican]

FIRED UP!!!!!!!!!! GET DOWN!!!!!!! BLOW!!!!!