The NY Times announces its picks.

Well no surprise here that the NY Times has announced its support for Hillary. The endorsement stated (in part):

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.

Isn't that sweet? This actually is expected as the Times endorsed Clinton when she was running for the Senate in NY in 2000 (Yep - Hillary that life long New Yorker) so I don't think there is any real news here. Again - no surprise.

But the NY Times also endorsed John McCain (similar to the Boston Globe already discussed in this space before). As I stated previously "These endorsements are not a good thing for McCain who is a war hero and has done so much for his country...He has fought many a good fight but he is not the standard bearer the Republican Party needs for 2008 and beyond." It is alos nice to note that while Hillary got a 2 page endorsement, McCain only garnered one page and most of the endorsement was explaining how bad the other 3 front runners for the Republican party are. The NY Times notes that McCain is not perfect though - "We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle." Note that there is no problem with Clinton pandering to the Left though but heaven forbid those right wingers get pandered to. The endorsement continues:

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.

The Times does not give Clinton any points for "bipartisan" leanings (although it is noted when the Times discusses Obama) because the Times does not care about Democrats working across the aisle on bipartisan legislation. They only care about more progressive (i.e liberal) issues being passed into law and more Government and Government Dependency and of course higher taxes, Government run day care and an end to the Iraq war. And this is the paper that is siding with McCain? This sounds like campaign fodder for Romney to use rather than something that should be a testament to McCain.

What is interesting is this endorsement in a way reveals what is happening in the Republican Party which began with George H.W. Bush. The Party began to splinter into a number of wings and has never truly recovered from what I would call the Conservative Coalition that supported Reagan (and George H.W. Bush). Where do the conservatives like Pat Buchanan sit now that the Republican party has veered off into a strange and foreign kind of conservatism that is not familar and moreover appears to be not effective in uniting the party that seems to be in disarray.

John McCain is not supported here although his service is admired. What is more interesting is what this election and its standard bearer will say about the Republican Party in 2008 and beyond. I would probably endorse anyone that the NY Times is against as a general rule (although I am not a Republican). I wonder how McCain will play this endorsement if at all.

OS