The New York Times officially will endorse Hillary Clinton and John McCain in their respective primaries in tomorrow’s edition, with two editorials that stand in stark contrast to each other. One is a zestful appreciation of the entire Democratic field, and one a bitter rebuke to the Republican Party and its horrible, uninspiring, please-dear-god-make-them-go-away candidates.
But first, the straightforward part: Why they endorsed Clinton:
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. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, 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. She would be a strong commander in chief....
Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. 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....
Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.
In other words: Strong on both foreign and domestic affairs, resilient, smart.
Interestingly, the Times editorial board takes the opportunity for a mild scold of its favored Democratic candidate -- and her puglistic-of-late husband -- and makes a direct plea to the power couple to dial back the attack rhetoric:
As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)
Despite the Clinton endorsement, however, the editorial reads like a love letter in a minor key to Obama as well, giving him nearly equal word count for the energy, spirit and vision he’s brought to the race, but faulting him for falling short on explaining specifics on how to reach his goals; it’s less of a knock on the trite "lack of experience" as it is a plea to try again -- and to nail down the concrete in the next go-round.
And then there’s the McCain endorsement, and you can hear the sighing from the editorial offices in every tortured word:
...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.
The enthusiasm, you could say, is more than slightly underwhelming. And that’s how it is with the whole endorsement, in stark contrast to the exuberant (and longer) Democratic piece. In choosing McCain, the Times spent many more spirited words bashing his rivals (and his party) than they did singing his praises. Here’s just a sample:
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.
The other candidates offer no better choices.
Romney and Huckabee are not spared; they simply evoke fewer words in their evisceration.
What’s remarkable about the twin endorsements are the most certainly planned and studied contrasts in how the two parties’ candidates are viewed. Compare this:
The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: 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.
With this:
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.
Still, there is a choice to be made ... [segue into tepid McCain support sentence cited above.]
As DHinMI quoted the great Devilstower observation earlier today: Democrats have, since the start of the campaign, been looking for an "All of the Above" option, while Republicans have been searching for "None of the Above."
The Times clearly feels the same way, and it doesn’t take a crystal ball to guess whom the newspaper will endorse in the general election.