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

[HowdyDoody]

Looks like Sulzberger and the NYT are on a roll: Judith Miller, Bill Kristol, and now Hillary, all hard driven, angry win-at-all-cost self promoters. I wouldn't place much faith in the Times recent history.

[Serfie]

Let's see:

The Clintons have defeated the right-wing hate machine, twice. The only people to do it in the last 60 years.

Yet, the Obamanistas--the Mondale, Dukakis, McGovern, Ralph Nader loser perennial wing of the party--think they can win against the racist right wing machine, because they have a handsome black man with a Muslim name, who caves to the slightest criticism and has no policies to speak of as their nominee.

The Obamanistas are completely self-deluded.

Their thinking is as empty as a Obama stump speech.

[patrice37]

I don't believe that the NYT edit board makes these decisions. At the least, the publisher has the last word, which means that we now have the opinion of Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., one disgracefully rich guy sitting by himself in an office high above Manhattan. What he thinks should mean even less to people than the recommendation of seven editorial writers in Des Moines (remember the Des Moines Register endorsements oh so long ago?) yakking among themselves over their bag lunches. And yet we take it all so seriously. The end of the American newspaper can't come too soon for me.

[findingthetruth]

I just watched the Republican debate (Florida). I noticed all candidates continuously mentioned having to run against Hillary.

Boy--they're eager for that challenge. If I were an International Football Team, having to chose to play against an American Team, I wouldn't mention the New England Patriots either (Obama). I'd play it SAFE and go for a team I KNOW I COULD DISINTEGRATE (Clinton).

[NYC07]

Hillary Clinton is the galvanizing force the fragmented Republican Party needs to put itself back together, get out the vote and take the White House.

[CaptainVideo]

If its Hillary vs. McCain-Lieberman, I hope that Bloomberg enters as an independent candidate. Hillary cannot defeat McCain-Lieberman because she cannot get the votes of the independent voters, and Bloomberg will be our last hope of stopping the McCain-Lieberman ticket.

[ChiGuy]

Idiots.

[MagisterLudi]

FINALLY the most important and influential paper in the country endorses Senator Clinton ( circulation 1,500,000 daily)

But hey Obama got the New York Observer!!! circulation 50,000 weekly. Kinda reflects his standing with the American people.

[AnninCA]

Love it. And I agree 100% with their reasoning, too.

[myname]

Surprise!

The paper who sold us the story of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction endorses a senator of their state who voted for the war to disarm those 'weapons'.

[auramac]

The endorsement should be taken at face value. Too much cynicism is as idiotic as most conspiracy theories. Hillary, like her or not, would be most effective on the job, and McCain is the least objectionable Republican- which makes him dangerous.

[Billie]

Was talking to friends the other day about how we used to get the Times every sunday, bring it home and read it while sipping coffee and eating bagels. A real New Yorker tradition. None of us do anymore. We were kind of shocked when we realized we had all stopped picking it up. We were wondering why. I don't even remember when I stopped. But I think it was because I stopped caring about a newspaper that lost its chops. No individual opinion voices. No truth. Just corporate pap and boring Magazine stories. I guess I'm not suprised the New New York Times would endorse the war voters. The paper just lost the ring of truth and righteousness a long time ago. Just my opinion.

[ohiomark]

McCain endorsed by the NYT? Do we need any more proof of how liberal he is?

[jsarets]

So the Times suggests that we choose between a candidate with the right policies but the wrong politics and a candidate with the right politics but the wrong policies.

If I could disregard foreign policy and the judiciary, I'd vote for McCain. But, alas, if it comes down to this, I'll have hold my nose and vote for another Clinton era, where the Republican talking-point machine keeps pushing the center to the right and the White House triangulates accordingly.

I don't think that Clinton will have much of a problem beating McCain. I don't think any of the Democrats would have much difficulty against any of the Republicans. Iraq is the ideal wedge issue for Democrats, a nice 60/40 split that will be hard to overcome with economic conservatism during a housing and debt crisis.

However, if Clinton fails to get the country to rally around her vision, then Jeb Bush might not have to wait until 2016. The odds of a one-term presidency are high this time around no matter who wins the election, but they're the highest with Clinton.

[Ginzaman]

Of course they will. Because this fits into the neocon MSM's grand plan of having them face off but then Hillary gets in. And then the HMOs, drug companies and defense contractor backers will get their return on their investment. Typical global corporate thinking.