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.”
I agree that the country is ready for its first female president. JUST NOT THIS FEMALE.
Need there be anything else said? The New York Times endorsement means a no vote.
If NYT is endorsing McCain, and NYT has a liberal bent and therefore is suspect, does that mean NYT think McCain is the candidate to beat? And if that is so, does NYT mean to marginalize him because MacCain would be tainted by that endorsement? hmmm..
Hopefully this endorsement will serve a greater purpose. Hopefully it will serve as the NAIL in McCain’s coffin! Romney is the only conservative in the race now that Thompson’s out.
The “New York Times” is trying to spoil the vote.
Vote for the top GOP candidate and spoil “The New York Slimes”.
There are a lot of posts here about McCain being endorsed by liberal (very very left-wing) NYT; and therefore, not to trust McCain. Read the endorsement; its almost as if they had to hold their nose and pick ONE of the evil GOP’ers so picked McCain, since its hard to besmearch a lifelong public servant and war hero. Even in their endorsement; they made clear he was just the least distasteful and still had to bash the Bush administration. The New York Times is nothing but a looney left shill and we all know it; but as the “paper of record” they had to at least pretend to support someone from the GOP side as well. Of course they disagree with all the GOPers, we want victory in the war on terror (including the battlefield in Iraq), we want lower taxes, less spending, no income redistribution, and free market solutions rather than big government solutions. The NYTs wants the opposite, same as Hillary and Bill Clinton have fought for “for 35 years”. But in supporting McCain, I realize the huge disadvantages the GOP face in 2008 and realize John McCain is a strong leader with the best chance of overcoming those disadvantages and keeping Billary from another stay in the White House. We, as Republicans need to 1) stop listening to the hype and realize John has a strong conservative record, and 2) realize that this election is slanted to the Dems; we need a candidate with McCain’s appeal to independents so as to carry the 4-6 swing states that will determine the 2008 election.
For any republican, to get the endorsement from the New York Times, could be the kiss of death. There is no question who the New York Times will endorse in a general election, whoever get the democrat nomination. The endorsement of Sen. McCain was not a glowing endorsement, just the lesser of all the evils of the republican candidates, according to the Times.
The New York Times, a waste of good ink.
So the Jihadist Times hates Rudy and loves McCain. They also hate America and love Castro’s Cuba. This could, and should, go down in history as the worst-timed endorsement in recent memory. If the Times printed that the sun rises in the east each morning, I’d get up early to check their facts. There are also millions of other ordinary Americans that feel the same way. Let’s face it, the Clintons and the media designed this crazy primary schedule so that the media could define candidates in as much as it is literally impossible for any candidate to independently define themselves the old fashioned way, i.e., state by state. I remain a staunch Giuliani supporter and this vicious attack just reinforces my belief that he is far and away the best and most qualified candidate in the Republican pool. The fact that the Jihadist Times hates him is just icing on the cake. Thanks for helping us tube that back-stabbing party traitor McCain. Keep up the good work.
Clinton more qualified….please. 35 years of experience, lets be frank here. If Hillary Clinton was so closely involved in Bill’s presidency then she would have been second in command if something were to happen to Bill. However the first lady of this country is not second in line, not even third, not even considered. So, Mrs Clinton how much involved in political affairs do you think Laura Bush is with George? Stop this nonsense. Someone should call her out on this now. God forbid if Hillary Clinton becomes president. The potential damage that woman could do to this country might be irreversible.
Hillary’s “experience”? Exactly what is it? She was married to a President, that’s all. Using that logic, I suppose that if Bill Clinton had been an astronaut it would make her qualified to command the space shuttle. After all, you gain experience by marriage. I wonder how many military wives can fly fighter planes because their husbands did/do.