On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, the editors of the NY Times have declared their endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President. The endorsement is fundamentally disingenuous, for two reasons. First: The rationale for such an endorsement is empty unless it looks frankly at the reasonable objections to the candidate endorsed, and answers those objections as well as possible. This endorsement only addresses superficial objections to Clinton's candidacy, not the deeper issues. Second: Such an endorsement is meaningful only to the extent that it fairly evaluates the qualities of a candidate's opponents. The Times endorsement of Clinton severely underestimates and in some cases distorts the characteristics that make Sanders attractive.
Let's look more closely at the reasonable objections to Clinton. Remarkably, the Times endorsement only considers two of these. One, which it considers reasonable and legitimate, is her use of her private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. The other, which it declares "outrageous," is her husband's sexual misconduct.
But neither of these represents the fundamental objection to Clinton. The first question posed to Clinton from the audience at the most recent debate nailed this objection: many people feel viscerally that there is something phony about her. There is a trust factor involved which is wholly absent in considering Bernie Sanders.
Moreover, is it really outrageous to recall her husband's private behavior when considering Hillary's suitability for office? It takes an exercise in willful blindness to separate the two. Whoever claims they can forget about Monica Lewinsky et al. when they think about Hillary Clinton is hard to believe. Strict logic suggests her husband's behavior is not relevant to Hillary's candidacy. But the heart and the gut have a different way of evaluating things, and they are not so lenient in this case. Surely the Republicans will be ruthless in exploiting this distinction.
Now let's see what the Times says about Sanders. It seems to admire his policy proposals, but in the next breath dismisses them - with no reason given - as "unrealistic." Really? Is the Times so superior that it can declare a major candidate's policy positions unrealistic without so much as a breath of explanation? Are we all supposed to fall in line as soon as the Times utters "unrealistic"? This is either an exercise in arrogance, or a transparent effort to sidestep the issues - or both.
The Times piles on with Clinton in harping about Sanders' record on gun control: it says his record is "relatively weak." But the NRA considers Sanders' record a D-minus. How can he be a D-minus in the eyes of the NRA and simultaneously weak in the eyes of the Times? Such a discrepancy makes no sense unless the Times were to offer some elaboration, but it offers none.
Finally, the Times makes no mention of Sanders' extensive experience, likeability and integrity, major factors among those who support him. The Times has reduced his candidacy to a policy position, without considering the characteristics of the candidate.
For all these reasons, the NY Times endorsement of Hillary Clinton fails to be convincing. It looks at the world through tired old eyes, and fails to see that something new is afoot within the American electorate. What a breath of fresh air would have been injected into the current campaign had the Times had the courage to endorse Sanders. What an opportunity has been lost, both for the Times and for us.