New York Times Endorses McCain, Clinton
The New York Times has endorsed John McCain and Hillary Clinton for the GOP and Democratic presidential nominations, respectively.
In the endorsements, to run in Friday’s edition, The Times highlighted each candidate’s perceived ability to undo what it called the harm of the Bush administration.
The McCain endorsement underscored the Arizona senator’s appeal across party lines, though the paper said it has disagreements with every Republican candidate.
Click here to read The Times’ McCain endorsement.
“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 endorsement said.
As to why the New York paper of record did not endorse former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the editorial was unrelenting.
“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?” the paper wrote. “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 … Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking.”
The Clinton endorsement had kind words for top rival Barack Obama, but called him “undefined,” and underscored Clinton’s experience and qualifications.
Click here to read The Times’ Clinton endorsement.
“By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts … Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm,” the paper said in its endorsement. “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.”
My prediction is that Mitt Romney is America’s last chance. The nations of the world see what idiots we are and will deicde how to devide us,
My Dad who died over 15 years ago, ( a democratice of the old party) said Washtingon was taken over by hoodlums and criminals. He saw in a dream America united when other countries invade us against and return to God for help. He saw American’s cities under fire and NYC totally d estroyed. Think about that when you vote for a man who has been a traitor to America as he was to his first wife and what do we expect. The world will think we are nuts for our thinking.
“KC” must be smoking crack. Like her husband (lying, immoral, unethical, disbarred, without any doubt instrumental in setting the conditions for easily carried out attacks on 9/11), in my opinion, Hillary would be one of the worst Presidents we have ever had. I consider her experience as nothing more than a cruel joke, unless you count being the president’s wife “experience”. My impression of Hillary has always been one of a whyny, smug, viscious, spiteful person (oh com’on, just look it up!) self interest and insatiable lust for power her most credible trait.
Hillary Clinton not only has experience, but she also represents change. Those are both good qualities to be sure, but more than that, I believe she will work harder than any of the others.