Yawn 1, yawn 2. I know this is a big endorsement for the two candidates, but surprising? No.
First, McCain, who has picked up steam (and money, raising $7 million this month); the NYT takes a swipe at the lunatic professional “Christian” set and warmongering neo-cons that have done a fabulous job of taking the country down a dark moral path:
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.
…Mr. McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush’s unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq’s murderous political calculus. At the least, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do. We disagree on issues like reproductive rights and gay marriage.
Gee, how could the NYT overlook the incredible performances of McCain last year, trying to prop up administration policy, like the infamous high-security Baghdad market excursion? What about his courting of the Creationist vote and unsuccessful, fawning courting of Daddy D, or his mind-boggling ignorant statements about HIV transmission and prevention. What it tells you is that the GOP field is so weak, so full of empty suits, theocrats or sure-fire losers, that it was slim pickins.
My favorite part of the endorsement, however, is the absolute blast Rudy Giuliani receives. The NYT could have continued its lovefest with the Tool, but it shot a Taser into the former NY mayor. Read the carnage after the jump.
All those New York transplants in Florida that Rudy was hoping to sway his way probably laughed out loud when they read that one.
Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?
That man is not running for president.
The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.
Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking.
Related:
* McCain to fellow senator Cornyn: ‘F*ck you’
* McCain calls gay troops an ‘intolerable risk’ in letter to SLDN
***
So on to the Clinton endorsement, which, unsurprisingly, is more enthusiastic about the Democratic field overall. It’s complimentary of Obama, but pretty harsh on John Edwards for taking responsibility for some of his earlier positions and votes (that’s basically an argument for never admitting you’re wrong, something we’ve seen Dear Leader do time and again).
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.That said, the most significant factor in the newspaper’s endorsement is Hillary Clinton’s experience, with a pointed jab at Bush’s leadership in the context of how Dems are judged on military issues.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.
We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.
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.
It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.However, she does not emerge unscathed, particularly for lowering the discourse of this campaign that so far resembles a scorched-earth policy of winning at any cost.The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.
…As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)So, the big question for you all out there — how important do you think this endorsement is for either of them? Does it influence only the political insiders and party operatives, or does Middle America care?
I’m not sure that the editorial board’s decision makes a ton of difference to the average voter, but what I do think matters with major paper endorsements like this are that they have an effect on how the MSM talking head coverage of the candidates will go forward. That does ultimately have an impact on how viewers and readers see the candidates, though the MSM would never admit that.
25 Responses to “NYT endorses McCain, Clinton”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
You’d be surprised at how much newspaper endorsements matter in general, especially in a place like CA with 20 or so propositions on the ballot. Endorsements for President? Not so much.
I think the endorsement matters more for why the Times endorsed Clinton. Basically, by claiming that Clinton has “foreign policy experience”–never mind that her decision regarding the most important foreign policy matter was disastrously wrong–the NYT has essentially declared that a candidate who was right all along about the war isn’t Serious (which is the same thing they did with anti-war opponents as a whole).
I’m afraid this will have the effect of whitewashing those who made a massive foreign policy blunder. That seems to be the long term effect.
On the economic front, the NYT is setting up the old simplistic globalization vs. trade idiocy again, when Edwards, to my mind, has been focusing more on runaway corporate power. The NYT could be casting the economic discussion, if it’s successful, in a really poor way that hurts working Democrats.
full disclosure: I’m leaning Edwards, but not really happy with any of the choices for various reasons.
Telling John Cornyn to go fuck himself is actually a huge plus in my book.
Endoresments, shmendorsements. I find it ludicrous that the MSM can endorse primary candidates for *both parties*. This is ridiculous; they’re simultaneously taking a vocal position that advocates extending the war in Iraq for a hundred years, banning gay marriage, overturning Roe v. Wade, and also, yeah, the opposite of all those things, too.
Meanwhile, the terms the MSM uses to describe McCain are all “stately this” and “maverick” that. He gets to be what, a monument to a horse? But Clinton is “harsh-sounding” (read: women’s voices are irritating) and Obama is “incandescent if still undefined… exhilarating.” It’s like they’re praising the first movie by a hot young director. I vote no on these endorsements. The nail in the coffin is that this NYT thinks the city they uh, love, used to be “dirty” and “dangerous.” I’ll admit, Giuliani showed us a city like that. Remind me how he cleaned up the streets again?
Those multiple pictures of McCain giving obeisance to his master remind me a lot of The Godfather - except, of course, in the movie Marlon Brando’s Godfather was a cunning, manipulative, evil criminal genius…
Sorry, I take that back.
Those pictures of McCain strapping on his kneepads to service Bush AREN’T ANYTHING LIKE The Godfather…
If politicians get into the habit of admitting when they’re wrong, then the media might be pressured to do it, too. We can’t have that! :O
I don’t know if these endorsements are important as much as they are reading the writing on the wall. McCain is the only serious GOP candidate that’s not batshit crazy and Clinton is probably the only Dem who’s craven enough to fight with the dirtiness its gonna take to beat back the GOP sludge machine and get the job done.
Hmmm, craven is a weird word there…let’s try Machiavellian instead.
I’m of two minds in regards to politicians changing their stances. On the one hand, it’s good to be able to admit you’re wrong; on the other, it’s really common for politicians to, you know, lie about stuff to get elected. While I believe John Edwards has changed his mind, I think it’s a fair point that he hasn’t had a chance to prove it yet–not being in Congress to let the changes play out in his votes, or anything similar. Allowing a politician to change her/his stance without calls of weakness is essential, but I think it’s fair for voters to hold back judgment a little until we’re sure s/he is not just saying it, you know?
Speaking of Sen. Hillary Clinton, some 43-year-old Ron Paul suppporter named Robert Morrow is calling our homes personally attacking her becasue of her personal life and her gender.
One thing to remember in considering the effect of these endorsements is that many people, especially Republican primary voters, consider the New York Times to be a liberal paper. So when the NYT endorses McCain, it gives McCain “bipartisan” credentials which might be attractive to some (and will help him in the general if he wins the primary) but will repel others who will say “McCain is the liberals’ favorite GOP candidate; it’s the liberal NYT that’s endorsing him, so we should reject him”.
OTOH, c.f. my fellow mad biologist Mike, the endorsement of HRC means that “even the dirty hippy liberals of the NYT think that only those who supported the war are serious about keeping our country safe”, etc.
Claims of liberal bias in the MSM have been disproven over and over, but that doesn’t stop people from believing the media are liberal and defining the media’s views as the left edge of acceptable discourse (and the media’s wankery as characteristic of liberals). In order to evaluate the effects of, e.g., the NYT endorsements, we must consider that they will be perceived as the views of the left edge of acceptable discourse.
some 43-year-old Ron Paul suppporter named Robert Morrow is calling our homes personally attacking her becasue of her personal life and her gender.
Personally, my favorite part of that robocall is …
“Hillary thinks cats are expendable; can you trust her?”
When he was President, the people I knew in the military despised Bill Clinton; so I don’t think they will embrace Hillary. They never let their disgust impede their professionalism, however.
Astoundingly, the only election call we’ve gotten so far was a nice lady asking G. to vote for Obama. (Is it a phone bank if people are calling from their home phones, or does it have another name?) We’ve gotten no Republican calls at all, probably because this year’s Republican primary will be closed. California lets parties decide whether they want their primary to be open or closed; Democrats chose open, Reps chose closed.
Don’t be surprised if Huckabee either wins California or comes in second — as I’ve said before, our home-bred wingnuts are some of the nuttiest you’ll find.
the reasoning the times uses kills me.
firstly, obama has been serving in elected governmental office for considerably longer than clinton.
secondly, i don’t care what sort of “foreign policy experience” she has when her foreign policy tends towards the hawkish! if we really wanted someone with the best foreign policy credentials, we would have favored joe biden. we need a leader who will bring the country together and forward, which is not clinton’s major strength.
Agreed about the Clintons and the military hate. She’d be wingnut-level crazy if she didn’t give Clark the VP nod to try and offset that.
Don’t be surprised if Huckabee either wins California or comes in second — as I’ve said before, our home-bred wingnuts are some of the nuttiest you’ll find. - mnemosyne
Indeed about the wingnuts. I am amazed at how liberal people outside of Cali think my state of origin is. I guess in terms of state-wide elections, there are more Dem. voters than GOP voters, but there are pockets of wingnutism the whackiest you’ll find in the nation … outside of the urban areas (even in the ‘burbs), Cali is a pretty wingnut filled place.
That being said, I don’t know how well Huckabee’s gestures toward economic populism will play in Cali, where they might be seen as “creeping comminism” or something along those lines. I bet the whole “FairTax” thing will play well, but other than that, Cali wingnuts would probably think Huckabee’s tendancy to actually adopt something other than a “the rich should be allowed to enslave the poor” economic stance will not play well in Cali.
Agreed about the Clintons and the military hate. She’d be wingnut-level crazy if she didn’t give Clark the VP nod to try and offset that. - Sheesh
Do those elements of the military that hate Clinton not hate Clark as well?
The only way I’d give a shit what the editorial page of the NYT has to say about anything is if they displayed only one sentence on the whole page: If you vote for a Republican you’re a complete fucking idiot.
I’d love to see Fox and Friends lead off with that story.
I remember reading the H.Clinton had made a specific effort to get on the good side of the brass. Has that been a waste of time?
Also: it should be well known that this ‘administration’ (::gag::) has gutted veterans’ benefits: surely those in the military KNOW this. Does it not matter to them?
Question - I know that it is “common knowledge” that HRC’s vote on the Iraq use of force bill was political positioning. But why do we assume Obama’s speech was “principled” whereas she was “calculating”? Because if i recall correctly, he had just primaried a liberal democrat in a liberal House district in 2000 and lost (Bobby Rush). Perhaps he was positioning himself for another run?
Now, I don’t know that is true, but why do we assume someone was principled just because they voted the way we prefer? It could be calculated as well.
I also know that Obama was willing to cut other people slack for voting the same way as Clinton when it served his purposes (ie for Kerry and Edwards in 2004). What’s changed today? The political calculation.
On the issue of Clinton getting along with the brass, she’s on Senate Armed Services and has been a very diligent committee member for seven years. Armed Services produces major policy every year (defense authorization).
Obama’s on Foreign Affairs which doesn’t produce much of anything in terms of policy and is primarily known as the home of blowhards like Biden and Chuck Hagel. Loved by the morning talk shows, but don’t really do anything substantive.
“I remember reading the H.Clinton had made a specific effort to get on the good side of the brass. Has that been a waste of time?”
Given how good (apparently) the wingnut Koolaid served in the military is, I’m pretty confident there’s only one action on either Clinton’s part that would please them: Commit suicide on live TV. (note: I’m not advocating this…)
“…it should be well known that this ‘administration’ (::gag::) has gutted veterans’ benefits: surely those in the military KNOW this. Does it not matter to them?”
It doesn’t seem to matter. They value the political over anything else.
The impression I’ve got over the last 7-years is that Cheney could skull-fuck a double-amputee soldier injured in Iraq while Bush held him down, with a live broadcast to US military bases all over the world, and the brass would figure out a way to explain that it was good for morale or something. Chris Mathews would be gushing about how manly they looked doing it.
Life isn’t fair - if it was, GWB would be pumping gas at a filling station in Maine right now…
A follow up to Columbia’s question(s): why does it matter whether something is a political calculation or not?
The pearl clutchers in the media have made sure that “political calculation” doesn’t play well in Peoria, and the GOP with some pretty nasty partisan hardball has done its part to discredit politics qua politics, but don’t people read their Madison anymore? It is political calculation, not principled stands, to which we are supposed to entrust our liberties … ya know, that whole “ambition must be made to challenge ambition” thing?
Of course, the neo-aristocracy boosters in the media do all they can to give bad PR to actual democracy, but their agenda in disdaining “politics” is, well, the promotion of apolitical aristocracy where we are led by folks to the manor born who nonetheless “have the common touch” so we commoners would want to have beer with them. That some scalawag could rise above his place by political calculation is horrifying to them.
But it is exactly how our system is supposed to work.
Let’s leave the denigration of political calculation to anti-democratic media pro-aristocratic lackies and pre-millenialists who think politics is teh evil ‘cause it’s worldy and remember that the whole point of our system is to channel political ambition into protecting liberty.
to DAS - that wasn’t really my question, although your answer is interesting. I’m wondering why Clinton gets “blamed” for a (supposedly) calculating vote on Iraq whereas Obama gets credit for a “principled stand”. How do we know he wasn’t calculating as well? Just because we agree, therefore he must be principled?
I don’t know if she was calculating. But I don’t know if he was either. Yet he seems to get a lot of benefit of the doubt from folks who can’t see inside his head.
Side comment: I’d really really really really like to see McCain and Clinton in a debate. I’d love for that aging, washed-up spineless shithead to look across the stage, remember that VILE, disgusting insult he hurled at Clinton’s daughter when she was just a teenager, and realize that he now has to face her mom in a debate.
Clinton will hate on his pathetic, grotesque ass so hard it’ll be a joy to behold. I want him facing an adversary who would gladly throw his ass down a flight of stairs.