What the NY Times Presidential Endorsements Say About the Traditional Media

If you're like most sentient humans, you don't care whom the NY Times editorial board decided to endorse for president. But the 'logic' behind the endorsement of Clinton is revealing. The Mandarin Class still doesn't get it. About Clinton's foreign policy experience, the Times editors write:

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush's inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

Immersed herself in what? A big bowl of stupid? She voted to give Little Lord Pontchartrain the authority to commit one of the stupidest foreign policy blunders in recent history. One certainly can't call this a good experience. The Times has essentially declared that a candidate who was right all along about the war isn't Serious (which is the same thing they did with anti-war opponents as a whole). In terms of the 2008 election, given the Times' position of prominence, this persistent attitude will have the effect of whitewashing those who made a massive foreign policy blunder, and removes what is one of the most distinguishing and defining positions between some Democrats and virtually of the Republicans (and I'm not just talking about the presidential elections, but also the Congressional ones).

Then there's the domestic policy endorsement:

We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards's fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we're not sure where he stands. We certainly don't buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.

Here, the Times is setting up the globalization debate as a replay of the Battle in Seattle, when much of Edwards talks about is runaway corporate power. The point isn't to endorse Edwards on my part (I'm very slightly leaning towards him), but to note that the way Edwards is portrayed undermines what liberals and progressives (and, in fairness, a few conservatives) have been trying to accomplish in placing governance back in the hands of the governed as opposed to corporations. Unfortunately, the Times is just playing the same old tune on this too.

The more things change....