The New York Times published their presidential primary endorsements today ahead of the South Carolina Democratic primary, the Florida Republican primary and Super Tuesday on Feb. 5 (which includes NY’s primaries).
For the Republicans, they went with McCain. Reasons: he’s principled, he’s reasonable, he plays nicely with others, yada, yada, yada. But it’s pretty clear they chose him because he wasn’t the other guys. He doesn’t blow with prevailing winds (Romney) and he isn’t a Constitution-bending Christian who’s going to shove brown-skinned people, baby killers and the gays over some Mexican border fence. But most importantly, he is NOT Rudy Giuliani.
Forget the other candidates, forget McCain … this editorial is one fat fuck you to Giuliani. I’ve heard some bitterness in NY over Rudy’s legacy but holy shit … I had no idea there was this level of animosity.
“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.”
Will it make a difference? Eh, probably not. I don’t think newspaper editorial endorsements matter all that much except inside the Beltway and maybe to their local markets (maybe – I have never actually met anyone who voted or changed their vote one way or another because of an editorial endorsement, including the Des Moines Register’s surprise 2004 nod to Edwards). And most New Yorkers have probably already made up their mind about Giuliani.
On the Democratic side, they went with Clinton because she doesn’t talk pretty but works hard while Obama talks pretty but vague and Edwards talks pretty but angry (or maybe it’s just because Obama and Edwards are really pretty).
I think they dismiss Edwards too fast though (about 55 words out of 1150 — no wonder he’s complaining about lack of media attention) :
“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.”
Thomas Schaller at Salon.com has a great summary of the problems facing Edwards, some of his own making and some just because of this amazing unprecedented Democratic primary dilemma where the white Southern guy is the odd man out. But he nails it when he says:
“Although it’s convenient to dismiss him as a populist-come-lately, Edwards embodies the process of ideological introspection and conversion many Democrats have experienced during George W. Bush’s presidency. That metamorphosis creates a certain dissonance. Clinton defends the Senate record she compiled during Bush’s first term, Obama doesn’t have one — and Edwards publicly regrets some of his. “
Repudiating his previous positions doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a flip-flopper; maybe it means he’s willing to acknowledge that he has made bad choices, regrets those choices (Hillary, say hello again to your 2002 vote on Iraq!) and would like the chance to undo some of the damage those choices did. It would have been nice for the NY Times to acknowledge that.
Related posts:
No Comments so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.