In today's copy of the New York Times, the editorial board has made their decision on who they will endorse for the primary. Our state goes to vote in a week and a half from now, but the national paper of record's choices reverberate farther than just the five boroughs. Everyone notices who they endorse, whether they're fans of the newspaper or not. Well the decision is in and it seems to be Hillary, then Obama and finally McCain in a half-hearted way.
From The NY Times:
This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.
As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.
They love Edwards but aren't sure about how he has changed certain positions over the last few years. For Obama, they love him but seem to say he needs to work on his ideas to back up that exuberant hope. He's great news to them, but not ready for primetime against the Republican machine. Speaking of Republicans....
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.
We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.
Ouch, that has to be one of the worst 'endorsements' ever. It is easy to see who the Times will go with in the general, but before you go, you must read their critiques of the hometown boy Giuliani. New Yorkers know him well and while Rudy can bash the Times in the debate last night, those pesky little things called facts get in the way when making a case that the Times has some sort of agenda. The only agenda for Rudy has been for a ruthless and power-hungry executive to go out and gain more power....and he'll do step on anyone's face to do it....and jump up and down on you just to satisfy that massive ego and protect his ultra-thin skin.
Oh and their opinions on the other candidates in the GOP field are just as nasty...all rooted in truth of course.
|