New York Times Endorses Clinton & McCain
Portions of their McCain endorsement:
We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president.
Noooo! You don’t say?
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. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.
We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate.
Portions of their Clinton endorsement:
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.
We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
“Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right” . . . I am not saying a word!
January 24th, 2008 at 11:05 pmNY Times? HAHA, like what they say means anything to anybody with their own brain housing group. Fucking corrupt pieces of shit!
January 24th, 2008 at 11:19 pmHmmm… Hillary looks good
January 25th, 2008 at 12:16 amSeriously, “Help restore America’s global image”? Are they kidding? Those two would make us out to be the, what’s the word i’m looking for…pick any derogatory adjective and insert it there.
Also, any democrat or republican for that matter, who pulls out of Iraq is going to have to live woth the consequences.
My only regret with 43 leaving the White House is that he may not be able to have the ny slimes in orange jump suits and pink sneakers before he leaves.
January 25th, 2008 at 2:46 amanybody who wonders who john mccain is,thank you ny times, has no excuse now. he’s no republican and he’s not even a itching of a conservative. our only choice is guiliani or romney and i’m not thrilled with these guys. by the way, that can’t be hilary, her calves are way too small lmao.
January 25th, 2008 at 3:15 amWow…the NY Slimeballs have endorsed two libs for POTUS. Whodathunkit?
January 25th, 2008 at 6:08 amsince the times is a mouthpiece whore for soros and the d’rat party, I would like to think McCain would disavow this
I’ll be the blue guy in the corner holding my breath waiting to hear him do so
January 25th, 2008 at 6:48 amThe NYTimes also went out of its way to call Guiliani every insult in the book in the same article, like they always do–they’ve published several hit pieces on their front page about him. I say this with all honesty–there is no difference between the NYT and Pravda of the old commie days.
January 25th, 2008 at 9:06 am