NYTimes Passes Over Biden and Bernie. Picks Both Women

The New York Times has made its endorsements for Democratic candidate for President. It's picked two candidates, independently. (i.e., the Times is not suggesting a two women ticket). And those candidates are: Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren.

“There will be those dissatisfied that this page is not throwing its weight behind a single candidate, favoring centrists or progressives,” the board writes. “But it’s a fight the party itself has been itching to have” since Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016, “and one that should be played out in the public arena and in the privacy of the voting booth.”

.... “Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren right now are the Democrats best equipped to lead that debate. May the best woman win.”

I agree. [More...]

Biden and Bernie have had their days in the sun. No amount of sunblock can erase their lines... or baggage. Biden thinks he's got the creds to be president, but really what he is America's most persistent crime warrior of the past 25 years, authoring almost every horrible piece of crime legislation that kept thousands (if not more) non-violent offenders in prison for decades. As I have opined here consistently for the past 18 years, I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher.

As for Bernie, he may have lit a fire under young potential voters, but his ideas are hardly revolutionary. I learned the same stances and values as a child from my parents, and they got them from their parents, who like Bernie, hailed from Brooklyn. Every relative I have known in my life shares these more-liberal-than-most values, especially my older sister. Bernie hasn't introduced any new ideas, he's capitalized on introducing them to new voters of different demographics than his own to whom they were new.

I'd be okay if Bernie were president. I'd just roll my eyes a lot at the lines he takes credit for that been around a few decades. And if Biden is elected? Easy: I'll move. But don't hold your breath, it won't happen.

I'm not quite ready to jumping on the Klobuchar train yet (if ever) because I have a feeling she is too far center right on crime issues or does not have much interest in them or knowledge about them. She seems focused on other topics. yell at his rallies.

You need to get involved. You need to do grass roots. Start at the bottom and go up. Pretend it's the mailroom of some famous talent agency you are working at (for free) because you just know you'll be running the place down in the not too distance future.

If you are worried about the ultimate nominee, and that we won't survive another four years under Trump (and really, what person with half a brain doesn't fear that way), you have two options: stay in bed with the covers over your head or get outside and into the streets and volunteer at Democratic headquaters to ensure that voter turnout is the highest ever and Donald Trump goes down with the biggest loss in presidential election history.

We get the Government we elect. These weeks that will be taken up with impeachment are a great time to start canvassing for your favorite candidate or accompanying them on the campaign trail to report back things the major papers didn't have time for.

If you think it's important your candidate win in Iowa, get a low fare there, the hotels are cheap, and ask the campaign how you can help. Or be independent, attend the caucuses and the candidates speeches there and report on them. I already served (2004, 2008 and 2012 as a credentialed blogger)and I'm done. But there's plenty of room for someone from the next generations to take my place.(I think my time is better spent researching permanent visas to Mexico, Costa Rica, Ecuador or Columbia.)

< Prince Harry Speaks: He is Sad
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is surprising (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 04:58:11 AM EST
    but I hope it gives Amy a boost.

    I would love for you to blog (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 05:04:25 AM EST
    on your research on permanent visas. My husband and I are going to Playa del Carmen in April and we're thinking about connecting with the ex-pat community down there to find out about retiring in Mexico. Costa Rica and Ecuador both seem to have great ex-pat communities and retirement options but from what I've seen on the International Living blogs is that Columbia is a mess right now. Have you checked into Portugal? That seems to be another popular destination for ex-pats.

    Merida (none / 0) (#12)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 10:35:58 AM EST
    is a beautiful, wonderful city.

    Since you are thinking of Playa del Carmen, nearby Merida is worth a look.  I like it better, since it is a bigger city, and not so much of a tourist trap.


    A U.S.-born Latino couple I am friends (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 12:41:30 PM EST
    considered living in Merida for six months. Didn't after researching and asking for input from a Mexican judge who is their friend. Cartel violence.

    Such a shame (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 01:59:26 PM EST
    That seems to be the case throughout Mexico nowadays....

    I mentioned (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 06:55:12 AM EST
    A lunch with trumpers.  That was something that started  like "want to see what we are up against"?

    The original purpose for that was to lunch with the democrat who invited me and talk about ways I could get involved.  He ran for local office in 2018 and lost and plans to run again this year.  He is well connected to the local dem party (such as it is).  

    Through him I got involved in some stuff like get out the vote assistance for people who needed rides and distributing yard signs and stuff.

    I can't do phone stuff.  Don't  have the patients.  

    I had never been much interested (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 06:58:42 AM EST
    In local politics oddly enough but he convinced me that's where it starts.  It might seem hopeless here but there are democrats

    I think the double endorsement is weird (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 07:33:51 AM EST
    It makes it look like some kind of statement.  Which is fine but as an endorsement IMO it weakens the possible effect for both.

    Not that endorsements really mean anything much anymore anyway.

    I think this quickens their irrelevancy  

    Watching one of the people (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 08:00:22 AM EST
    Who made this decision discuss it.  What she is basically saying is they picked one from column A (left) and one from column B (moderate) because they were either unable or unwilling to make a choice.

    Which is kind of the point of and endorsement I thought



    "It's about respect for the voters" (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 08:02:46 AM EST
    Translation we didn't want to pi$$ anyone off.

    Granting (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 08:12:35 AM EST
    The possible intention to endorse "the resistance" and do no harm.

    Misguided.  I think


    Mediaite (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 09:30:42 AM EST
    Howdy, can you try and (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 12:07:28 PM EST
    combine your comments into more than one liners so there aren't so many to scroll through. I know stream of consciousness is fun but that's really not the point of comments. Thanks!

    Sure (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 12:14:00 PM EST

    It is a problem


    It is a statement. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 12:07:48 PM EST
    Identity politics trumps all.

    Well, (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 02:49:24 PM EST
    since both of them are more qualified than Trump to hold the job you have to devolve into your Russian talking points don't you?

    You guys are automatic (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 05:49:06 PM EST
    You have a handful of stock responses to everything.  One of those is ridiculing concerns over race and gender equality as just "identity politics."

    Not a lot of thinking going on there.

    And, of all days to trot out this allergy to racial and gender equality, you choose MLK day.  Classic.


    AAA, do you (none / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 05:50:25 PM EST
    think today is "Identity Politics Day?"

    Kudos to the NY Times (none / 0) (#9)
    by hilts on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 08:54:34 AM EST
    for giving Joe Biden the Rodney Dangerfield treatment he richly deserves. At 77, Biden looks and sounds horrible.  I have serious reservations about Biden's stamina and energy to serve 4 years.

    Warren and Klobuchar project competence and gravitas,

    Biden, on the other hand, projects buffoonery and cluelessness.

    On the one hand (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 09:33:09 AM EST
    It's kind of hilarious that the NYTimes couldn't pick a candidate.

    On the other hand neither can my aunt and she has the same top two.

    But we all know the candidates we don't like, just like the Times.

    The predicate for the NYTimes candidate (none / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 12:04:28 PM EST
    assessments and recommendations was three different tracks to the future: (1) Trump, with continued white nativism, unilateralism foreign policy, escalating culture wars, an extremist right wing judiciary, and continuing and brazen corruption, (2) A Democrat who believes Trump to be an aberration and his going away will be enough, and (3) A Democrat who believes Trump's exit is critical, but the political and economic climate that enabled this demagogue needs to be addressed.

    The NYT editorial board decidedly rejected the first, naming Trump as a threat to democracy; however, it did a disservice to their starting efforts by not coming down on the side of either the second or third vision, which would have eased their way toward making a recommendation for one, rather than two, different candidates.

    The editorial board finds good news in Elizabeth Warren: a commitment to anti-corruption, fluent in foreign policy, a studied approach to policy-making, and the bolstering of the safety net, including social security, an investment in clean energy, and a sophisticated understanding of the different levers of power in an administration.

    The editorial board notes her stepping back to an incremental approach to Medicare for All and does not much like her proposal for a wealth tax, finding reasons such as a likely inability to succeed legislatively and roadblocks by a conservative judiciary.

    There was good news to find, too, in Amy Klobuchar. The senator, in their view, offers the best chance to enact many progressive plans because of her bipartisan credentials, "being of Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness."

    This evaluation is based on her record of bills passed with bipartisan support, although it is acknowledged that her recent legislation is narrow.  Apparently, the board feels that Klobuchar will not be faced with Republican obstructionism as would be the case with Warren. Candy in the stocking for Klobuchar, but coal for Biden as indicated in his critique a few lines preceding.

    From my point of view, a Democrat who demands nothing of Republicans is sure to get it. Klobuchar, if she is going to move out of the polling basement she needs to spend less time on telling us why we can't have nice things. And, to demonstrate leadership she needs to distinguish between "pipe dreams" and acceptable progressive initiatives.

    Perhaps in a quest for balance, reporting of Senator Klobuchar's treatment of her staff gives them pause raising questions about her ability to attract and keep talented people.

    I have noted that the NYTimes editorial board is often more clear-eyed than the access and stenographic reporting on the news pages. However, the endorsement of two candidates, presented with two different visions, reveals more disarray among the editorial board than among Democratic primary voters.  Democrats, I believe, first and foremost, want Trump out. Good government will follow.

    Twitter mocked the NYT (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 12:48:27 PM EST
    endorsing two candidates.  But the editorial explaining why the board endorsed Warren and Klobuchar explains why the board did not endorse the others and supported the dual endorsement. Made sense to me.

    While I certainly understand (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 02:48:31 PM EST
    why the whole bipartisan thing leaves people cold especially after Obama's post partisan unity shtick, I think Amy's background as a prosecutor makes her a better candidate to run against Trump. Who better to run against the mob than someone who knows how to prosecute them.

    at this point I've made over a thousand phone call (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdm251 on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 05:22:15 PM EST
    Been phone banking for a couple months now, I've talked to people that support almost every candidate, including one person that thought Pelosi was running and I have never heard someone say they support Klobuchar.  Seems that the Times endorsement elevated her, probably at the expense of Elizabeth Warren.    

    The voters appear (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 20, 2020 at 06:19:57 PM EST
    ready to spite the New York Times, as the race appears to be narrowing down to Bernie and Biden.

    So much for the power of a New York Times editorial.