Late Sunday night, the New York Times editorial board announced that they were endorsing both Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination (and, by default, for president).
The split endorsement made sense to The New York Times, it seems. In these trying times, they claimed, solid leadership is necessary, even if neither endorsed candidate has a radical leadership vision or demonstrated leadership skills (Klobuchar does rule her staff with an iron fist, though … reportedly).
“On the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation,” the editorial board wrote. “Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible. Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced.”
“Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it,” they said. “That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.”
Klobuchar has only barely managed to clear 5% in enough polls to end up on the debate stage. Warren has been on a steady trajectory downward since November, after her “vision” for Medicare for All faltered because she was asked to provide details of the plan. Neither seem to fit into either the “radical” or “realist” models — Warren certainly isn’t dynamic and legitimately progressive like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and neither is considered a real threat to President Donald Trump in battleground states like former Vice President Joe Biden — but the Times seemed pleased, if only because they managed to endorse two women for the nation’s highest office.
“May the best woman win,” one member of the team wrote on Twitter.
If the Times was self-satisfied with their decision, though, they were the only ones. The decision was thrashed on social media by conservatives and stalwart leftists alike.
“What incredible cowardice,” wrote conservative commentator Noah Rothman.
“Gonna be hilarious when Warren leaks to CNN tomorrow that Amy Klobuchar told her a woman couldn’t beat Trump,” joked Stephen Miller.
Politico’s chief political correspondent, Tim Alberta, wasn’t as nice. “I mean, newspaper endorsements are silly and self-important to begin with,” he said. “But this Times bit… good grief. Have these people zero self-awareness?”
“So…the NY Times has endorsed Amy Klobuchar AND Elizabeth Warren for the Democratic presidential primary? They do know only one them can win, right?” noted NPR’s Eric Deddens.
Even progressives took issue with the endorsement, blaming the Times for stepping on its own foot.
“I had heard a rumor about three hours ago that NYT was planning to endorse both Warren and Klobuchar, and the agreement between my friend and me was: That sounds exactly on-brand for NYT. Not wanting to be offensive and yet likely offending everyone,” said Human Rights Coaliton communications director and trans-rights activist Charlotte Clymer — certainly not one known to have any conservative opinions.
Warren, at least was happy, tweeting that, ‘I guess @AmyKlobuchar and I are now both undefeated in elections and undefeated in New York Times endorsements!”
Not to be the bearer of bad news, but The New York Times routinely endorses Democrats for the presidential election. They don’t always win.
No comments:
Post a Comment