New York Times Endorses Clinton and McCain, Slams Rudy

Posted by Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend at 6:26 AM on January 25, 2008.

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:

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.

All those New York transplants in Florida that Rudy was hoping to sway his way probably laughed out loud when they read that one.

***
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

Tagged as: clinton, obama, mccain, edwards, giuliani

Pam Spaulding blogs at Pam's House Blend.