Here's the New York Times editorial
My letter to editor below (tiny edits made).
To send your own
letters@nytimes.com
fax: (212)556-3622
public@nytimes.com
The editorial "Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton" (Jan 25, 2008) disappointed me.
After a fair introduction, it turns to dispatching Edwards as quickly as possible using three dismissive sentences that are devoid of serious consideration:
We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.
These two broad and unsupported attacks serve only to reinforce that notion of the paper’s established commitment to underreporting John Edwards throughout his campaign – including prior to holding the first caucus and primary.
The article is littered with failures of substance in tackling real issues: instead of journalism, it reads like a media-prepared Clinton campaign narrative, complete with minor criticisms cleverly added to give the veneer of objectivity.
Then there is the against-the-grain claim of Clinton the Uniter – most political observers conclude she will unite the Republicans against her, giving the Republicans the best chance to fire up their base; not, as you conclude "best choice...regain the White House"
Her campaign has the demonstrable goal of victory at all costs, no matter how narrow. Contrary to your claim "best choice for the Democratic party", her candidacy would compete in the least amount of states necessary to win and thus have disastrous effects for Democrats hoping to grow their majority in Congress and Senate.
In conclusion, to not even address the serious issue of having two political families rule and define the country for a potential 28 years (1988 – 2016), and not question the health of our democracy, is an astonishing omission.
End Notes:
I realize this is short - as required by New York Times - and there is a of points that can be explored in more detail, perhaps in the comments.
On the Republican side, The New York Times posted an endorsement of John McCain. Inertia7 has dissected it nicely here