New York Times Picks Warren and Klobuchar, but Really Only Picks Warren

New York Times Picks Warren and Klobuchar, but Really Only Picks Warren

The New York Times broke tradition on Sunday night by endorsing Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for the Democratic presidential nomination.

But this is more than just an endorsement for the Democratic primary. Look at the opening paragraph:

The incumbent president, Donald Trump, is clear about where he is guiding the Republican Party — white nativism at home and America First unilateralism abroad, brazen corruption, escalating culture wars, a judiciary stacked with ideologues and the veneration of a mythological past where the hierarchy in American society was defined and unchallenged.

Wow, editorial board! I completely forgot that President Barack Obama presided over a corruption-free eight years! I also forgot that the eight years under Obama lacked culture wars and no one cared about social justice!

Oh, yeah! Obama never once nominated an ideologue for a judicial post! Man, Obama filled those eight years with sunshine, rainbows, unicorns, and lollipops.

Trump comes into office and America is awful. Racists everywhere. He dare put America’s interests above anyone else. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!

The editorial board tried to explain why they chose Warren and Klobuchar:

It was a privilege for us on the editorial board to spend more than a dozen hours talking to candidates, asking them any question that came to mind. Yet that exercise is impossible for most Americans, and we were left wanting for a more focused conversation for the public. Now is the time to narrow the race.

The history of the editorial board would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward, within the realities of a constitutional framework and a multiparty country. But the events of the past few years have shaken the confidence of even the most committed institutionalists. We are not veering away from the values we espouse, but we are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird those values.

In other words, The New York Times is desperate to get rid of Trump so why not pick two? It also seems like the choice is sending the Democratic Party a message: This is the ticket to win in 2020.

Due to questions over Sen. Bernie Sanders’ health, the editorial board found relief that Warren “has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left.”

The editorial board praised Warren as a “gifted storyteller” (more on that later) who can speak “elegantly of how the economic system is rigged against all but the wealthiest Americans.” They adore how she has detailed policies, unlike other candidates. The board members think she “speaks fluently about foreign policy.”

On the other hand, the editorial board described Klobuchar as the “standard-bearer for the Democratic center.” They hope her bipartisan credentials can bring all sides of the party together along with her “Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness.”

Their argument is automatically moot because they called Warren a “gifted storyteller.” How many times has Professor Jacobson and others on this website debunked Warren’s stories? Here are a few:

• Elizabeth Warren tells activist her kids went to public school, but that’s not totally true
• Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare-for-All tax plan is as credible as her claim to be Native American.
• Elizabeth Warren’s pregnancy discrimination fib uncovered by Bernie-supporting Socialist, not “right wing” as Warren claims
• Elizabeth Warren DNA test does NOT prove she’s Native American, contrary to the hype

But if you can get past that obviously false statement from the editorial board there are other problems with choosing two candidates with different views.

Board member Mara Gay told Morning Joe this morning that the NYT “is really traditionalist.” However, their decision “is an acknowledgment” that America’s institutions “need strengthening in a way that may require something far beyond what it did in the past.”

Others found it as a cop-out or a way to boost Warren as the preferred candidate.

NYT endorses two candidates with two completely different worldviews. Apparently in an effort to render the endorsement meaningless.

— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) January 20, 2020

Presumedly the logic behind the dual NYT endorsement is not to put off any piece of the wider anti-Trump readership they’ve accumulated over past 3 years.

I get it. But the “decision” hurts the credibility of the paper.

— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) January 20, 2020

NY Times endorsed both Warren & Klobuchar strategically for 2 reasons:
1) Warren has always been Left media’s candidate, which is how she survived all her gaffes.
2) The other woman is competing with Biden in Iowa for voters, not Warren. So this is also an attempt to help Warren.

— Steve Deace (@SteveDeaceShow) January 20, 2020

The @nytimes rationale for endorsing two candidates is amazingly convoluted. To wit: amid three visions for America, two radical and one traditional, we discard one and split the difference between the best argued of the other two: https://t.co/outLBWbF4x

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) January 20, 2020

NY Times wants Warren. Throwing Klobuchar in there was their way of telling Biden to pick her as VP should he get the nomination.

— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) January 20, 2020

Don’t be fooled, NYT endorsed Warren. They threw Klobuchar in there because because they knew everyone expected them to pick Warren, and they know Klobuchar doesn’t have that great of a chance.

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) January 20, 2020

What incredible cowardice. https://t.co/VdkVRqNo22

— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) January 20, 2020

Bad enough they held their nose for Warren after her atrocious interview (re: https://t.co/9tehwbRWp1) but they couldn’t even bring themselves to do so without being cripplingly wishy washy about it. Why endorse at all if you’re backing two candidates in the same election!

— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) January 20, 2020

What an absolute waste of time and a spectacularly insulting test of their readers’ patience.

— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) January 20, 2020

A Warren endorsement would’ve had an impact. A Klobuchar endorsement would’ve had an impact. Splitting it down the middle waters down the impact of either choice. A negative synergy. https://t.co/ISkjoKMlZl

— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) January 20, 2020

No Males!

You should also look at the candidates the NYT did not pick. Could you imagine the outrage from social justice warriors if they picked a white male, especially an old white male like Sanders or former Vice President Joe Biden?

The NYT admitted the similarities between Sanders and Warren, but Sanders’ October heart attack saved the writers from having to choose him.

But age became a huge factor when it came to Sanders and Biden.

Biden’s age became a problem as well with the writers suggesting he “pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders.”

Sanders will be 79 in January 2021. Biden will be 77 in January 2021.

Well, Warren turns 71 in June. So if age is a problem why doesn’t she fall into that category? Klobuchar turns 60 in May.

So if Biden should step aside for the new generation then why didn’t the NYT pick Andrew Yang? He’s not white. He just turned 45.

Former South Ben Mayor Pete Buttigieg is white, but he’s gay and only 38. Why not him?

Here’s the deal. They want this “new generation,” but they picked Warren and Klobuchar due to their experience as well. They described Buttigieg and Yang as novices, which is not wrong, but don’t they represent this new generation? I think so.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Just be honest about your criteria. You do not want males, especially old white males.

Because we saw how well it went in 2016 when the Democratic Party chose diversity over what voters actually wanted.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.