New York Times Endorses Hillary Clinton

Via Memeorandum, the New York Times has endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination:

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.

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.

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image. On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

I'll just end the quote right there.

Readers need to keep in mind that NYT - despite the demands of journalism's professional ethics of objectivity - will do just about whatever takes to disrupt Republican prospects for retaining the White House this year.

First step: Get on board "Hill Force One" while it's motoring down the tarmac, better that way to get in on the ground floor of Democratic Party access and media largesse in a Clinton-times-two presidential administration.

Besides this, NYT has the most pronounced political agenda of any of the country's major national dailies. This is the newspaper, of course, that has repeatedly compromised American national security by unveiling U.S. intelligence programs that have worked to secure vital information on America's enemies and their plans.

This is a newspaper whose readership, egged on by outlandish frontpage reporting and editorial commentary, epitomizes the ultimate, narrow echo chamber of left-wing intolerance - the outrage at neoconservative William Kristol's hiring attests to that.

This is the paper, moreover, that has seen its reputation as the country's unofficial newspaper of record tarnished by scandals of plagiarism and shoddy journalistic practice.

It's with these thoughts in mind that one should consider the paper's backing of Hillary Clinton. No matter Hillary's obvious political skills and perseverance, there's a venality and remorseless in her drive for power that's mirrored by the Times' opportunistic backing.

Conservatives have a big year ahead of them. Democratic partisans are more enthusiastic about election politics so far. This big push by the leading liberal journalistic mouthpiece will add more kindling to that fire.

It's time to think now - beyond the primaries - of the consequences of easy cruising while the left-wing media mobilizes behind the Clinton machine. The highest stakes lie ahead, on November 4, when the country selects our next president and commander-in-chief.

**********

UPDATE: The Times has also endorsed Senator John McCain, but for all the wrong reasons.

The paper endorses his criticism of the Rumsfeld follies of light infantry and zero post-conflict stability. Simultaneously, the editors refuse to acknowledge the most important fact of the war today: military success, which is leading to increasing political accomodation:

Mr. McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush’s unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq’s murderous political calculus. At the least, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do.

NYT also makes light of Senator McCain's essential conservativism, writing off his bedrock positions on abortion and gay rights, as though these positions result from flexible campaign pandering.

Perhaps the paper's pragmatic, getting its bets in now with the most publically-identified leader among the candidates of either party. Truth be told, though, McCain will be NYT's arch nemesis on American foreign policy and the battle for global freedom. McCain will protect American national security on the march of freedom. This is an agenda the Old Gray Lady's already resisted to its very core.