The NY Times endorses John Kerry

[La_Serpiente]

The NY Times endorses John Kerry

The search for a Democratic presidential nominee has been defined by an Anyone-but-Bush sentiment, an obsession with choosing the man who will run the best campaign. But in the end, the party needs to pick the person who is most qualified to be president. That's why this page endorses Senator John Kerry in Tuesday's primary.

Senator John Edwards, Mr. Kerry's only serious competitor, has been terrific on the campaign trail. He has a great speech and enormous discipline, and he makes a direct and genuinely emotional connection with people of all backgrounds. It's easy to envision him as the nominee four or eight years down the line, or on the ticket for vice president this fall. But Mr. Edwards has spent only a few years in public life. When he departs from his stump speech and discusses domestic issues or — particularly — foreign affairs, his lack of experience shows.

It's true that Mr. Edwards has as much or more experience than George Bush did when he entered the White House in 2001. But that was a different era. Now Americans understand better that they live in perilous times, and they aren't likely to feel comfortable switching leaders this fall if the challenger seems to require a lot of on-the-job training. Mr. Bush himself was not well served by the thinness of his résumé when Sept. 11 occurred.

Mr. Kerry, one of the Senate's experts in foreign affairs, exudes maturity and depth. He can discuss virtually any issue of security or international affairs with authority. What his critics see as an inability to take strong, clear positions seems to us to reflect his appreciation that life is not simple. He understands the nuances and shades of gray in both foreign and domestic policy. While he still has trouble turning out snappy sound bites, we don't detect any difficulty in laying down a clear bottom line. His campaigning skills are perhaps not as strong as his intellectual ones, but they are pretty good and getting better. Early in the race he alienated some audiences with brittle, patronizing lectures. But he has improved tremendously over the last few months. His answers are focused and to the point, and his speeches far more compelling.

more...

The NY Times endorses John Kerry

Free Registration Required

[Dookus]

1. Congratulations

to Kerry.

I think the editorial lays out the case for Kerry very well.

[KurtNilsen]

3. Agree.

I particularly appreciate the fourth paragraph.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. "exudes maturity and depth"

I'll say- in a way too big for words. :thumbsup:

[maddezmom]

2. That's a Biggie, congrats John Kerry

:)

[Tim_in_HK]

4. Congrats Kerry people n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Actually the NYT endorsing him is the first time I am scared

about something concerning Kerry...but it was a nice endorsement.

[cryofan]

6. F*UCK the Times

in the rectum with a chain saw.

I prefer Kerry over Edwards because Kerry has proposed a more generous healthcare plan.

[La_Serpiente]

7. *ouch*

that must hurt :scared:

[jsw_81]

10. Tell us how you really feel

[ThirdWheelLegend]

8. Big surprise..? Oh and a neat trick to try re: Kucinich

Bring up the article and do a search for "kucinich" on that page.

Guess what? No mention, I really love the New York Times' discussion of the candidates! So in depth!

Go Media!

Not that I expected them to endorse Kucinich, but the obvious Kucinich blackout continues.

:eyes:

TWL

[jsw_81]

9. Kucinich blackout? I don't think so

I checked, and there have been 82 NYT articles mentioning Dennis Kucinich in the last month. In the last year, there have been over 250 articles that mentioned Kucinich. Since 1996, there have been 350+ articles.

Face it: Kucinich has been included in every single televised debate and has been mentioned hundreds of times in the media, but he's still losing everywhere.

[IrateCitizen]

18. There's a big difference between "mentioning" and "coverage"

If an article on a debate closes out with the sentence, "Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich also participated in the debate," then that qualifies as a mention. But it does nothing to tell people of his positions or anything he is emphasizing.

I read the times several times a week, and I can tell you that for a good couple of weeks during the initial primary push, there was NOT A MENTION of Dennis Kucinich outside of comments like the one above, and a listing of his upcoming campaign stops. That's IT. When he came in third in WA and ME, he STILL got zero coverage. If that's not a media blackout, I don't know what is.

Of course, the only time they actually did do more than just mention him once in passing during an article was in their editorials calling for his exclusion from the debates, so I guess that counts for SOMETHING. :eyes:

[blm]

23. I always thought if the coverage had been fair

that Kucinich would be in the top tier of candidates last fall.

[AP]

11. Quite possible that positions on trade made the difference.

I never thought the times would endorse Edwards -- not the paper that editorialized in favor of the Venezuelan coup.

[IndianaGreen]

17. I am sure Kerry will pursue Bush's policies in Venezuela

after all, they both identify with the Venezuelan ruling class, as they do with the Colombian ruling class (Kerry voted for Plan Colombia).

[molly]

12. WHOA!!!!

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[Adelante]

13. Bottom line

"Now Americans understand better that they live in perilous times, and they aren't likely to feel comfortable switching leaders this fall if the challenger seems to require a lot of on-the-job training. Mr. Bush himself was not well served by the thinness of his résumé when Sept. 11 occurred."

[IndianaGreen]

14. NY Times endorsed the war in Iraq and spread lies about WMDs

A suitable endorsement to a suitable candidate.

The establishment is going to dump Bush, but in order to avoid a Bolshevik revolution they are going to endorse Kerensky to replace the Czar.

[kerryistheanswer]

16. Not true - the NYT Editorial did not support the War

I read the editorials on a daily basis and they didn't support the war.

The Washington Post did.

[IrateCitizen]

19. Look up Judith Miller's NYT columns in the run-up to war

She was a prime propagandist for the Pentagon hawks in spreading disinformation about WMD's. Better yet, look up her extensive ties with Laurie Mylroie of the American Enterprise Institute, the same AEI that spawned the likes of Richard Perle, and the work that Mylroie did in pimping the invasion.

All of Miller's columns got front-page billing. All of them talked extensively of "grave threats" and the like from "unnamed Pentagon sources". Her work was pure propaganda, and the Times gave her a megaphone with which to broadcast it.

You would also do well to rewind to the NYT's comments on Powell's presentation to the UN. I believe their comments were that he "laid out a clear and convincing case". In no way did they challenge his assertions, most of which were based either on gross exaggeration or outright mistruth.

Additionally, I believe that Thomas Friedman played the role of pushing for the invasion -- and still continues to trumpet its justification -- several times a week from the op-ed page.

[mobuto]

22. Judith Miller does have

high-level Pentagon sources. Did she print misinformation? Sure. But there's no evidence she made up any of the quotes she was given. On the contrary, in many cases she wrote just what the Pentagon told her to write.

The editorial page has been consistent.

Tom Friedman speaks for himself.

[rucky]

20. There's that word again

nuance

well, if it helps him get around his GOP declared vulnerability & makes Bush look like a fool, then nuance nuance nuance.

I just wish his nuances would be a bit more overt.

[oasis]

21. "one of the senate's experts in foreign affairs,exudes maturity and depth"