Why is the Times endorsing Clinton?

Possibly because they don't read the news!  The paper's editors describe Clinton as "brilliant if at times harsh-sounding," Obama as the "incandescent if still undefined senator," and Edwards (damned if he combs his hair, damned if he doesn't) as a"raw" populist.  Using the word "qualified," the Times sees Clinton as more experienced.

On one of the most important issues -- Iraq -- Times editors say they disagree with Clinton's original vote which helped put us there, but figures she's "already thinking" about how to control Iraq's chaos.  Wow! Thinking about it!  Then the Times goes on to acknowledge Obama's strong -- and crucial -- stand on "the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers" intimating that Clinton will take a look at the problem and perhaps find a solution.   Which of the candidates is more likely to restore the balance of powers?  Are Hillary and Bill Clinton likely to give up the new, imperial powers George Bush has added to the presidency?

Times editors pull their heads from their nether regions long enough to plead with Clinton to clean up her act and "change her tone."  It will be interesting to watch the reactions to their choice of Democratic endorsee -- reactions which may go beyond well-phrased, furious letters from readers.

In a lukish endorsement of John McCain, the Times says of its former mayor, Rudy Giuliani:

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.

With the exception of McCain, the other candidates are no more appealing to the Times.  And McCain doesn't exactly get a warm hug: "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."

The Times' editors have spent quite a lot of time during the past 8 years with their heads well inserted as they okayed Judith Miller's activities and failed to use their blue pencil on Michael Gordon.  Their credibility has been badly, badly damaged.  Using their remaining creds to endorse one weak and one very Bush-like candidate seems unwise at best.

Comments

[Dan]

Hey PW - I'm coming up for air. :) It's too much to ask for but I would have liked if they had refrained from an endorsement - and said as much now - until we see if any of them provide leadership on the PAA reauthorization. You know, actually doing something.

[PW]

Exactly.

[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 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. They won't change the debate. They're not even trying.

[PW]

Terrific comment, Mark. You're right.