NYT editors endorse: Clinton (D) McCAIN!! (R)
- Thread starter Napoleon
- Start date
washparkhorn
2,500+ Posts
I think that stings Obama more than Rudy.
Texas Wahoo
1,000+ Posts
Hornin Hong Kong
1,000+ Posts
Do you think this means the NYT thinks McCain is the worst/weakest Republican candidate and the easiest for Hillary to beat?
washparkhorn
2,500+ Posts
Giuliani just addressed the issue in the debate - he said he this was some the nicest language the NYT has ever written him and, if he did what the NYT wanted him to do, he wouldn't be considered a conservative Republican.
Good response - he marginalized the NYT - as most Republicans do regarding their editorial postures.
Good response - he marginalized the NYT - as most Republicans do regarding their editorial postures.
If you read the two editorials, they plainly state that they don't like any of the Republican candidates, but they think that McCain has been the one that you could trust and who actually has reached across the aisle and worked well with Demos in the past. (Feingold & Teddy Kennedy) They don't act like they love him, they just say that he's the best of the lot. (Or maybe he's the least bad.)
They also kind of gush over Obama and Clinton. They mention that Clinton has done some things wrong during this campaign and that it would serve her best to change her negative ways and get back to the positive. But it also says that when she is wrong and gets hammered for it (her first foray into the Health Care issue), she learns from her mistakes. Some might call this flip-flopping, but I guess if you at least make and effort and get your *** kicked, it can be called learning from your mistakes.
They just seem to think that Obama's done nothing yet. He sounds great, but they feel more comfortable supporting someone who has more experience (and they make a point of saying "YES, experience".
There's no question after two lines into either endorsement which way the editorial staff leans. They make it clear even for those who have no idea what their history is. But after making it clear, they use example after example of why they think their choice is the right choice. You can disagree with them, but you can't fault them for not giving examples.
They also kind of gush over Obama and Clinton. They mention that Clinton has done some things wrong during this campaign and that it would serve her best to change her negative ways and get back to the positive. But it also says that when she is wrong and gets hammered for it (her first foray into the Health Care issue), she learns from her mistakes. Some might call this flip-flopping, but I guess if you at least make and effort and get your *** kicked, it can be called learning from your mistakes.
They just seem to think that Obama's done nothing yet. He sounds great, but they feel more comfortable supporting someone who has more experience (and they make a point of saying "YES, experience".
There's no question after two lines into either endorsement which way the editorial staff leans. They make it clear even for those who have no idea what their history is. But after making it clear, they use example after example of why they think their choice is the right choice. You can disagree with them, but you can't fault them for not giving examples.
triplehorn
2,500+ Posts
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
