The New York Times took some time to endorse presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
After considering the candidates and their campaigns, The Times‘ editorial board have decided that Clinton and McCain are America’s best choices for the Democratic and Republican parties. Here’s what they say about Senator Clinton – note their catty assessment of Obama:
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.
As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.
The board describes an Obama presidency as “enticing,” but ultimately feels that Clinton brings more to the presidential table.
The Republican field, says The Times, wasn’t as fruitful as the Democratic offerings. Thus they really had no other choice than to endorse McCain, the least evil and insane of the crew.
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, 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 paper goes on to blast former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani, whom they describe as “secretive” and “vindictive,” both of which are true.