Endorsements or Indictments?

The Gray Lady 's primary choices are (Surprise!) John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Of McCain, the NY Times editors say:

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. We disagree on issues like reproductive rights and gay marriage.

In 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate
of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most
liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.

That doesn’t make him a moderate, but it makes him the best choice for the party’s presidential nomination.

McCain is the new Bob Dole. He is definitely the Republican candidate of the left as indicated by the NY Times' backhanded primary endorsement. Having inflated his nomination bid by voting for him as Independents, liberal Democrats are moving in for the kill.

Shockingly, though the NY Times editors praise John McCain for selling out to some of the most liberal elements of the regressive Democratic Party on campaign finance reform and immigration, they don't consider him a "moderate." And then they take umbrage whey they are labeled liberals.

As for Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic Party editors echo her campaign themes when they say:

The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave.

The White liberal establishment elite and its media surrogates at the New York Times have dragged Barack Obama from the back of the bus and thrown him under it. If elected, will the NY Times declare Hillary the first black female president? I wouldn't put it past them.

Notice how nonchalantly the NY Times editorial board dismisses Hillary's vote to give President Bush authority to go to war with Iraq and how sycophantically they mimic her campaign mantra of "experience" and fictitious readiness to "lead from day one." Shameful.