On the eve of the Democratic primary in South Carolina and the Republican contest in Florida, the New York Times editorial board endorses the two part front runners, Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The most striking feature of the Times endorsement for Clinton is its praise for the entire Democratic field:
"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."
The editors praise Obama's inspirational and rhetorical brilliance and say the choice comes down to experience.
"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."
The editorial for McCain is more of an anti-endorsement for the GOP brand. "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."
The choicest words are reserved for the single-issue candidacy of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, currently tanking in the polls and probably soon relegated to the asterisk column. The editors slam Giuliani as "a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power" whose "arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking."
Major newspaper endorsements probably mean very little to the average voter, but, definitely carry more weight amongst the chattering class and the mainstream media. Major media endorsements probably help to frame the debate around the candidates and shape their talking points—last night's Republican debate featured a number of questions that were raised in the Times' endorsements.
More HILLARY CLINTON
More JOHN McCAIN
While endorsements don't affect me, be it Oprah or anyone else, I will say that I am glad that the New York Times has written about Giuliani and his sneaky ass. Last night's Republican debate showed me just how manipulative (and frankly unintelligent in general) he is. I am also glad that everyone is seeing past that 9/11 mask of his. I don't know if anyone heard his answer to the "wet foot, dry foot" Cuba question. But he basically said that it had been implemented for 40 years. Which is interesting since "wet foot, dry foot" was initiated by Clinton in the 90's. You would think that with all of his campaigning with the very Republican Florida Cubans that he would've at least gotten that right.
Posted by: Blah! | 25 January 2008 at 13:44
Rod's been on Giuliani's case for the past year. Can't say this was suprising ...
Posted by: Chris W | 25 January 2008 at 17:22
I do feel like those that are supporting Hillary Clinton are SEVERELY NAIVE, in their decision making. I mean this woman voted for the Iraq Resolution, which of course Bush used as a justification for war, which means she was fooled by George W. Bush, which means SHE WAS WRONG, and not only was she wrong she can't even admit it, secondly she voted for the Patriot Act and then in 2006 voted AGAIN TO RE-AUTHORIZE IT, she voted for the Iran Resolution WHICH IS THE SAME VOTE SHE GAVE FOR IRAQ! She refuses to negotiate with other countries where that are not our friends, which is basically the same tactic employeed by G.W Bush. In one debate she could not guarantee that all troops will be home by the end of her first term, her healthcare plan is NOT truly universal. Her plan, Obama's plan, and Edwards' plan all follow Richard Nixon's model or mandates and forcing employers to cover their workers which will hurt the average worker through layoffs, pay cuts, etc and I could go on
Posted by: Mikey | 25 January 2008 at 22:15