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

[semorg]

I have to give it to NYT, actually the McCain endorsement is not bad. He is insane but he is honest about it. But a con job like Hillary who just the other day at the debate looked at the camera and lied. It remind me of another person who looked into the camera and said he had no sex with that women.

[marika]

This endorsement certainly comes as no surprise - The Clinton couple reinstalled in the WH and a "GrandDaddy Short Legs."

This is what America offers. No wonder the NYT is wondering "where did all the readers go."

[swift goat pet for truth]

The NYTimes.

Recently installed Bill Kristol to their editorial page.

How much credibility do they think they have left?

[DrToketee]

Blah, blah, blah ... hey, it now all boils down to this: either Hillary picks Obama as her V.P. running mate and with him wins the election and has a half-decent chance of repairing our country over the next 16 years, or McCain becomes President and our impoverished children, as well as our children's children, will continue to serve in Iraq as the U.S. staggers into the Second World. Yes, the next 16 years, not 4, are on the line here.

[thebeerdoctor]

The New York Times is the paper of the broken record. I have often wondered why McCain is held in such high regard. OK, I understand he was held in a Vietnam prison for years. But why was he held there? For dropping bombs on peasants. He is one of the most over rated politicians, full of the kind of nonsense that emotional (that is gut check) people will be foolishly attracted to.
As For Bill I mean Hillary Clinton, well it is suffice to say that politics demands alot of lubricants as the Shameless Ones ride their bit into the ground.

As Gore Vidal said: "The New York Times is a very bad newspaper."

[Rendon76]

Who gives a shit? I know it's not going to change my vote.

[Heyman]

The New York Times? HA! HA! HA! Another MSM that only IDIOTS believe! From the demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC 7? (That the OWNER, told PBS he told the NYFD to "pull it".) To the 14 foot hole that punched through 3 concrete and steel walls at the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001...WHERE WAS THE NEW YORK TIMES investigating reporters? No where to be seen.
They can endorsed Mr. Ed! GEEEE Wilber! I'd never listen to ANY MSM! All corrupt! Like OUR government!

[Dyogenes]

So, the folks that brought us William Kristol, Judith Miller
and the Iraq War are now pimping for Hillary and McCain.
Why am I NOT surprised! The very Establishm­ent/Conven­tional Wisdom/Group Think Editorial Board should Just change the masthead to LOSER and be done with it. Sounding more and more like Rupert each week!

[nihilon x]

I'll post this again since I still have no answer.

Why has Hillary not released her records to the public?

[ChristopherLib]

Man a lot of jealous Clinton hating cry babies here. The Times made a thoughtful, and I would say correct endorsement in Hillary for the Democratic nomination. She has the experience, the plans, and intelligence to lead our country out of the disaster that is Bush. Obama is a good guy, but he's another one of those candidates you want to have a beer with but when it comes to running the country there is a lot of uncertainity. We've been down that road enough I think.

And I think we have to give the NY Times credit here for endorsing McCain. Right wingers despise the paper. They knew exactly what they were doing by putting him on a pedestal. It will hurt McCain I don't think there's any question. He's the one we don't want to face in the general.

[PAFirefighter]

Wait just a damned second here!

The newspaper that hired the likes of Bill Kristol for its editorial page is now endorsing the two most conventional, politics-as-usual candidates? The two with more time in the federal system than anybody else?

Well, those are the two that I certainly WILL NOT vote for - even if they are the nominees of the two major parties.

I'd rather vote Green, Libertarian, or even Communist than either of those two members of the "old boy" network.

PA Firefighter

"Cogito, ergo Liberal!"

[Rubiconski]

The NY Times 100% bought into and fuelled the drumbeat to launch the war against Iraq - just as Hillary Clinton did. They and Clinton were enthusiastic participants in Bush and Cheney's crime. This endorsement shows that the NY Times editors continue to show the same quality of judgement.

[nellie]

"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."

This phrase actually gives me some hope that the NYT has some perspective on the importance of this election, as well as the disaster of the past seven years—to which it contributed mightily.

[Rubiconski]

Come November, when Hillary loses, "electibility" will be water under the bridge.

The NYTimes will gravely report, based on some poll or another, something like, "Voters heavily favor GOP values."

Meaning, as Rush will handily inform us, that we're simply not American enough. We don't watch NASCAR, we don't listen to country music.

[kevenseven]

Off topic, but I don't care, regarding Telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping:

BREAKING NEWS!

There IS hope! From Greenwald at Salon:

UPDATE V: There was some significant, and apparently unexpected, obstructionism on the part of Republicans this afternoon, whereby they blocked votes on any of the pending amendments and then filed a Motion for Cloture (i.e., to force a vote on the Senate Intelligence Committee bill as is), the vote on which will occur on Monday at 4:30 p.m. Supposedly, the obstructionism angered Reid and other Democrats and now Reid will not only support Dodd's filibuster but urge his caucus to do so as well.

I'm still trying to understand exactly what occurred procedurally and what the implications are, but for now, both Marcy Wheeler and McJoan have good explanations. The essence is that 36 Democrats already voted against the SIC bill (and in favor of the Judiciary Committee bill). To sustain a filibuster, they need 41 Senators who refuse to vote for cloture -- meaning they would need to convert 3 Democrats who voted for the SIC bill, plus Obama and Clinton (who are scheduled to be in DC on Monday for the State of the Union address). This is where Obama and Clinton's leadership could really make a genuine difference. More on this later.

UPDATE VI: Tim Tagaris, recently of the Dodd campaign, has much more analysis and information about what occurred today.

There were three embedded links in the text:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/01/24/what-ever-happened-to-upperdown-votes/

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/24/18101/4412/844/442586

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3410

Act NOW or don't come on this board pissing about the Dems caving again! We only need to turn three votes.