Thursday, January 24, 2008

New York Times Weighs In

For what it's worth, the NYT editorial board endorses Clinton and McCain. A nice boost for Clinton, a mixed blessing for McCain:

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.


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.

What is interesting about this particular endorsement, how it plays with the respective base. I'm quite certain that Clinton's camp has released a memo to anyone who will listen. I've just read that on the Republican side, it is actually the Guiliani and Romney campaigns that are spreading the word.

Conservatives in American share the same martyr, paranoid delusions of their Canadian counterparts- the mainstream media is part of co-ordinated conspiracy to silence their voice, a threat. The NYT embodies the medium, which is why their endorsement is a double-edged sword for McCain. Many conservatives will view this endorsement as proof that McCain really is a closet Democrat, someone who can't be trusted.

The endorsement made its way to the Republican debate tonight, particularly a scathing reference to Guiliani:
The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking."

Giuliani was asked to respond, and he seemed to relish the opportunity to paint the NYT as liberal, a biased operation that had an axe to grind. The response played well, the anti-endorsement spun as a plus in conservative circles. I thought McCain demonstrated some awareness of the dangers in the endorsement, because he came to Guiliani's defence, almost refudiating the paper who had heaped praise. Strange dynamic.

One camp is happy, the other will probably never mention it again.


Scotian said...

The American conservatives do not merely share in it (liberal media conspiracy/bias myth), they originated it and it migrated into the Canadian Conservative mindset/consciousness to help them explain why their political ideas were not electorally popular with the Canadian public. With of course even less evidence to support it as there was in the case of the SCLM in the USA (which has anything but a "liberal/leftie" bias despite the claims of right wingers everywhere) which is why belief in it is a deciding criteria as to whether I will debate/respond with a supporter of the Conservatives or not.

Steve V said...


You're right the rallying cry was exported to Canada, our conservatives don't seem to be terribly original in their greviances.

RuralSandi said...

I hope the Clinton camp can rummage up the tape of McCain saying a while back that Hillary was very easy to work with.

Anonymous said...

I don't know what Harper will do if the Globe and Mail endorses Dion in the next election.

Steve V said...


Here was McCain's reaction today:

"I appreciate anyone's endorsement. Because I receive their endorsement does not mean I necessarily share their views."