The New York Times Endorses....(Can We Have the Envelope Please?)

by Damozel | For Democrats, they pick HILLARY CLINTON.  I wish I could hear the anguished screams of Hillary-hater Maureen Dowd.  Otherwise:  nope, not surprised. 

For Republicans, they pick JOHN MCCAIN.  I wasn't expecting that, but I can't say who I expected instead.  Romney?  I don't know.  As they say, "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."  But they found McCain "an easy choice." I doubt this particular endorsement helps him much with the "base." Rather the reverse, I imagine.  But he's my favorite too, naturally.

And the best part of their McCain-related discussion is the Giuliani-bashing.  I might not have mentioned this repeatedly, but I don't like him and it's only partly because of his anti-ferret campaign.

Anyway, here's their reasoning:

Why Hillary?

First, all the Dems get their meed of praise for their contribution to the debate, which I guess is nice. Even "the remaining long shot, John Edwards," who "has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism" gets thanks for his participation, though they regret to say his candidacy does not meet their current needs. 

Though the NYT has "enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards' fiery oratory," it just can't support his candidacy. He stands accused of the ultimate sin, flip-flopping (though subsequently Hillary is praised for "learning from experience" and changing her positions accordingly.  I think what they mean is:  we doubt his sincerity.  I think this is so bogus, but Edwards isn't going to get the nomination, as my mother assures me ("Grow up! Get over it!")  Not much point at this stage in arguing Edwards' merits.  Oh yes, and the NYT editorial board doesn't "buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization."

The NYT thinks that Clinton and Obama would be about equally good choices "to 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. On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove. (NYT) 

And so....? 

...and so though Obama has "built an exciting campaign around the notion of the change," they aren't persuaded that he has the monopoly "on ideas that would repair the governing of America" (NYT) 

But they are "hugely impressed" by the depth of Hillary's "knowledge,...the force of her intellect and...the breadth of, yes, her experience." (NYT)   She has proved her fitness to be commander in chief "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."(NYT) 

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.

Though Clinton has sometimes failed in tackling complex policy issues, "she has shown a willingness to grow and change."(NYT)  "She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans."(NYT)  Gaaaah.  But I like Hillary anyway. 

Though I also like Obama just about as well.  So why, you ask, did the New York Times editorial board choose Hillary instead?

Bottom line on Obama:  they think he is still untried. "Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now....[W]e need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern." (NYT)

(Read more along the same lines...)

Why John McCain, the "easy choice" among the Republicans?

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. (NYT; emphasis added)

Here's the part I enjoyed:

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. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign. (NYT; emphasis added)

Their analysis of the other Republicans also amused me:  Mitt Romney's "shape-shifting rivals that of Mr. Giuliani...It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country." (NYT).

They call Huckabee out on the conflict between his talk about "a softer Christian conservatism" and his anti-immigrant absolutism.  And this I loved:  "His insertion of religion into the race, herding Mr. Romney into a defense of his beliefs, disqualified him for the Oval Office."(NYT).

Read more on the same lines....

Memeorandum is buzzing away here...

BN-POLITICS POSTINGS

Mitt Romney: Odd Republican Out?

Mike Duncan:  A Man with a Plan to Beat Top Dems

Bill Clinton, Pit Bull:  A Clinton Campaign Strategy

Humanizing Hillary

Fraught Moments from Along the Campaign Trail

Rove's Bold & Innovative Plan for Beating Top Dems

Mike Huckabee:  The Constitution v. "the Word of the Living God"

Economy: Krugman says Obama Less Progressive Than Clinton & Edwards

Comments

[markg8]

What's to like?

NAFTA? Welfare reform? Dont Ask, Don't Tell? The Communications Decency Act? Easing media ownership laws? Defense of Marriage Act?

This is some of the legislation Bill Clinton signed into law. Most of it in an effort to save his presidency after the disastrous failure of Hillary's healthcare reform bill lost congress to the Republicans.

Obama is right, Clinton didn't shift the American debate our way. The Clintons just triangulated their way through the 1990's doing their best to ameliorate the worst aspects of Republican legislation.

In the end the man who told us if we worked hard and played by the rules broke the rules, got caught and allowed the Republicans to stifle any gains he could have made for us. We lost congress and he couldn't even help Al Gore become his successor.

If we nominate Hillary and she gets elected you can expect more of the same small bore efforts. These two won't build the huge mandate we need for the great changes that have to be made. There will be no coattails. They won't change the debate. They've never even tried.

[damozel]

I don't know; do you think that what Bill Clinton had to do in the nineties will be a rule for Hillary now? She seems to be saying rather different things than she did before. At any rate, no truly progressive agenda can be implemented except by stages with the country so divided (which would have been a problem if my man Edwards---the only REAL progressive running---had been elected).

I don't think Obama will be a bit different. According to Krugman---who is after all a highly credentialed economist---Hillary's economic plan is more progressive than Obama's.

Triangulation is going to be necessary for them to get anything done at all REALISTICALLY. Shoving a progressive agenda down the throats of the "base" is likely to have the same effect as their shoving theirs down ours. It's got to happen gradually, so frightened conservatives will see that the world doesn't come to an end.

And the Hillary-hatred (not yours, just it in general) strikes me as WAY over the top, quite frankly. It's raised my feminist hackles, since everything she's accused of could be said of her rival(s): arrogant, smug, rich, oligarch, ties to corrupt business people, will say whatever it takes to get elected, ruthless....

[James Stripes]

Perhaps I take too much stock in history, but I agree with assessments that Hillary has already aided in the production some of the disasters we must overcome. Untried Obama looks good, thus, but inexperience and vague notions of "unifying potential" such as Andrew Sullivan addressed at length in the Atlantic Monthly are not convincing reasons. They've been convincing enough so far when combined with my historical distrust of everything Clinton. I'm still among the undecideds and my state's primary is still a month away, and the Democratic candidate might yet be clear before then.

Can I in good conscience support Hillary? By highlighting how she has learned from her errors, the NYT's endorsement reminds me of the death and rebirth of another Presidential candidate: Richard Nixon.

[damozel]

I think that's a bit much, to compare her to Nixon, don't you (really)? So much hyperbole about the Clintons, especially Hillary. Nobody ever says anything specific about Hillary. It's just all so out of proportion to the actual offenses. meanwhile, everyone's worshipping Obama in the expectation that a new broom sweeps clean. I've never heard him make a single point of substance on an issue where I didn't prefer Hillary's stance each time. (And I like Edwards much better than either).

If people would study the candidates' aspirations and choose the one whose platform would be in their best interests (instead of fixating on whether the person is clean enough, sweet enough, bright enough, or likable enough), this would be a different world.

Nixon was most closer in every respect to George W. Bush....I'm sorry, I see nothing in common between either.

[James Stripes]

Perhaps I overreached a little. Nevertheless, things looked very bleak for the future of the Clintons during the height of the Lewinsky scandal, just as Nixon's political future looked dead after he lost the 1960 Presidential election, then the California governor's race in 1962. Nevertheless, he won the Presidency in 1968 and then in 1972 won by the largest margin in history to that point (and a larger share of the popular vote than Reagan got in 1984). Hillary's current ascendancy resembles the Phoenix quality of Nixon (rising from the ashes). They also both share a naked quest for power. Of course their ideologies are poles apart.

Nixon was more evil than Bush, and far less naive. Bush has no comprehension of foreign policy and has created a disaster as a consequence. Nixon's made less mess than any of his Republican successors, and he understood the consequences of his actions--his crimes in Indochina were conscious and deliberate.

The whole likability thing is a serious problem in American politics. I would like to agree that it is beside the point, but it is one that politicians and campaign workers must consider. Indeed, the Democratic party as a whole must understand that far too many ordinary voters will make their decision on such a basis. Overcoming her image problem as unlikable is one place where Hillary might look to Nixon as a model. In these post-Watergate years, it is hard to remember that he was immensely disliked at the start of his career and at the end, but not always through the middle.