NYT again. I quit them during their Whitewater crap. Judith Miller made it permanent. I see they think Biden, the man with the bast shot at winning, “doesn’t offer enough change”. Just how silly is that? Currently Trump’s in the White House. Is the NYT suggesting Biden will be Trump lite? Ridiculous but here we go again. The name of the game is getting Trump gone. It’s priority number one so you go about it with that in mind. Warren can win but she’s no where near as likely to as Biden. Klobuchar will not put passion in the race and Trump will go 4 more.
5 Likes
Well, they endorsed HRC in the 2008 primary, so there’s that.
3 Likes
He doesn’t look happy in that picture.
1 Like
While I absolutely support women candidates, I am not as supportive of NYT as a trustworthy source. They have an agenda, and it is NOT supportive of the rest of us. This “endorsement” is a ploy…
As the General above says: “Vote blue no matter who.”
10 Likes
They came out in favor of continued “Dems in Disarray” headlines and many more breathless articles about the Battle Royale within the party.
That way, they can:
-
Keep generating “news”
-
Keep the focus on Dems and not on the criminal conspiracy that is now the GOP
-
Continue to avoid any responsibility the NYT itself might have for bringing us to this place.
Seems like a rock-solid endorsement to me.
11 Likes
This article fairly and accurately summarizes the NYT position on each candidate analyzed in this unusual editorial. I have one quibble and that is that if they have to cite Klobuchar’s reported friction with her staff as a reason she shouldn’t be president, they were looking hard for faults to balance the praise. Even Trump, whose maltreatment of others has been well documented for decades, was able to get a number of capable people to sign on for positions in his cabinet and administration.
13 Likes
Spot on!
Mike Bloomberg skipped the interview citing a lack of positions
I’m thankful for Bloomberg’s ad blitz going after Trump. He’s our billionaire! But I don’t see how skipping this interview was a good thing. I guess that he wants to be the master of his own narrative, or something like that.
But how can a candidate possess a lack of positions?
16 Likes
4 Likes
I endorsed Obama. 
15 Likes
Did you even read the editorial? Even if you don’t like its conclusion, the description of the Democratic Party’s dilemma is spot on. And extremely important to recognize and understand if we want to win.
8 Likes
They certainly were correct about Bernie…
6 Likes
And in 2008
5 Likes
Well, besides the fact that more young women than young men support Sanders; besides the fact that he’s most popular with young blacks, and latinx of all ages; and the fact that NYT has had the long knives out for Sanders since 2015; your image is spot on.
Maybe you are referencing this supporter?
I’m still laughing 
3 Likes
There’s a possibility (a probable possibility) that they wanted to endorse only Klobuchar - that she was the consensus candidate among all the members of the Editorial Board - but endorsing a second tier candidate would brought its own criticisms.
8 Likes
Warren is seventy now, she’ll be seventy-one in 2021 and were she to survive her first term, she’ll be seventy four.
4 Likes
Carlos: Do you have a man bun?
2 Likes
Any Democrat is better than a self confessed felon who nearly started WW III after the holidays. The country deserves a reprieve from the lunatic of the last three years.
Our party is offering a new course and a back to serious business agenda which addresses healthcare, global warming, income inequality and the new Ai challenges of the Tech Age which worries everyone whether they admit it or not. That’s all that’s important to me.
I think the country is ready to get on with it. The last three years has been complete waste of time and a big hit to our prestige in the world. Republicans killed their own American Exceptionalism claim. They can’t run on that any longer.
18 Likes
The structural bias in media reporting even leaks into this article, just a little, at the end, with the “fight both wings have been itching to have.”
Yes, there are different views within the Democratic party, and political contenders are in a structurally contentious relationship, so they’ll “fight” (more or less effectively). And I may have those I find more plausible, and those who don’t impress me.
BUT: Whoever the Democratic nominee is… from Biden to Sanders, or a little green alien who flies into the convention and hypnotizes the delegates to elect them… I will be supporting that candidate emphatically and enthusiastically. It will be so tempting to “report” on the “fights” during the primaries, but the reality is that Democrats and many independents will coalesce when the nominee is determined.
And for those purists, Russian-funded trolls, and others who try to cavil and divide: in a winner-take all election, two coalitional parties are the only possible outcome, and if you don’t support the less-worse of the two major party candidates, then you are de facto supporting the more-worse candidate. Purists don’t like this reality, but it’s a simple fact driven by election dynamics. Populist purists who supported Ross Perot got Bill Clinton elected. The small number of purists who supported fringe candidates in 2000 and 2016 may have even swung the elections then, too, though it’s less clear. In 2020, when every vote may well count owing to the Electoral College rigging that favors rural states and Republicans, purism or “they’re all the same-ism” are a recipe for re-electing a madman. Keep that in mind.
17 Likes