The New York Times editorial board threw its weight behind both Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), breaking from the traditional one-candidate endorsement to argue that both women are the most effective standard bearers for their wings of the party.
The primary process will resolve this.
And it might not be either one of these.
I tried endorsing two women at the same time many years ago. Kinda tricky.
As candidates, that’s fine.
As spouses or partners, could be problematic…
Now I can die peacefully.
I’d love to know how influential an NYT endorsement is today compared to, say, 1983.
Actually it was for a donut eating contest down at the Sertoma. I hedged my bets and bet on both to win. The tall one got hung up on the creme filled and it really slowed her down. I think I broke even if I recall.
This is very important. We now know, definitively, that the NY Times is full of shit.
I find this pandering in the extreme. Endorse either one or the other like is done with male candidates. This isn’t even an endorsement really. It’s like saying Flip A Coin.
I watched the NYT show The Weekly last night on FX. They showed some of the interview process. I really liked watching it. They asked some tough questions, and had some interesting reflections from the interviews.
I also like both Klobuchar and Warren.
Woohoo!! Women Power!!
Though she isn’t my top choice, one thing I must say about Klobuchar is that she has gone from cringeworthy in the early debates to rather good more recently. Warren is just a master debater. We are four years too late on a woman president, but better late than never.
Voting blue no matter who.
Did not expect that level of detail. 
Read the endorsement. I thought it was good.
After the terrible job the NYT did covering HRC in 2016, the two candidates should take the endorsement with an entire salt dome formation.
Klobuchar has an endearing trait of not talking down to people. She just puts terms like “monopsony” out there like you’re part of the discussion. Great communicators are those that make their audiences feel smart.
After Judith Miller got done with her endorsement of the Iraqi War invasion, I’d rather take advise from my deranged conservative in-laws.
The NYT has less spine than Republican senators
I was surprised to see an endorsement this early. A bit of a cop-out in not being able to decide between the left and left-center candidates, but the choices align with my personal preferences so I don’t have anything to complain about.
I give the NYT board credit for mentioning the age issue for Biden and Bernie. It isn’t ageist, it’s just realistic. It’s highly likely that neither one would serve a second term, which gives up the incumbent advantage, and puts enormous, unnecessary focus on a VP pick. We’re supposed to vote for President, not vote for the VP choice. And it’s past time for a woman to be President.
Not that endorsements mean anything. I think Biden wins the primary on name recognition, Obama nostalgia, and as the “safe” choice. But man, is he living in a different era, based on his comments in the interview with the NYT for the endorsements. I’d vote for him in preference to Bernie, but I’m still hoping Warren can pull it off.
Oh, you were a naughty boy…
