New York Times Endorses Hillary Clinton

NYT’s insights and content have driven learning and debate at The Agonist for many years. It comes as no great surprise that the editors of the Gray Lady have drawn many of the same conclusions we have about the Democratic candidates.

New York Times: Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination – “In the end, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.”

The editors of the Washington Post criticize Bernie Sanders’s fiction-filled campaign – “Mr. Sanders is not a brave truth-teller. He is a politician selling his own brand of fiction to a slice of the country that eagerly wants to buy it. He assures Democrats concerned about the political obstacles in the way of his agenda that he will lead a “political revolution” that will help him clear the capital of corruption and influence-peddling. This self-regarding analysis implies a national consensus favoring his agenda when there is none and ignores the many legitimate checks and balances in the political system that he cannot wish away.”

If a real revolution were unfolding, Congress would already be stuffed with new faces and Obama’s bill signing hand would be cramping. Progress takes work and compromise, not bluster and promises.

This post was read 1092 times.

About author View all posts


Jay is Editor In Chief of The Agonist, veteran and technologist.

11 CommentsLeave a comment

  • This self-regarding analysis implies a national consensus favoring his agenda when there is none and ignores the many legitimate checks and balances in the political system that he cannot wish away.”

      If by ‘national consensus’ they mean overwhelming support, they’re right. On the other hand, what to do you call Sanders’ support among a large part of the middle class and particularly from the [idealistic? naive?] younger generation? Seems to me it’s certainly a consensus in the making; the question is how quickly it will progress and how deep into the political infrastructure it will penetrate. If you read the NYT and WaPo and other ‘opinion makers’ of the day, FDR didn’t have a National Consensus, but in fact he did. He knew it and he acted accordingly. Wall St & NYT weren’t happy, but The People knew they had a friend in the White House.

      Meanwhile, the ‘legitimate checks and balances’ don’t seem to have been very effective, do they? Perhaps it’s because they were put in place to balance the three areas of government that existed in 1787. Unfortunately, Money has become the Fourth Branch of Government and is operating without restraint, having co-opted the Legislative and Executive and much of the Judicial.

      NYT & WaPo are – and always have been – all about business-as-usual. HRC tried to push health care reform during Bill’s tenure and as far as I am concerned, that’s about the only thing in her plus column. Since then, it’s been all about her ambition; doing whatever it takes to endear herself to Big Money, including pushing for war (and its ‘coincidental’ profits for her friends), pandering to Wall St, etc. She carries a lot of negative baggage, some bogus and some genuine, perhaps enough to give the WH to the GOP (if they can ever decide which shit-for-brains they prefer). Bernie may indeed be overly-optimistic, but I’d rather have someone whose heart’s in the right place, trying (even if failing), proselytizing, teaching, changing a generation’s view of what politics should be and what America should be.

      JFK inspired the country. He changed an entire generation and set it on a new path. That well may be what got him killed. Bernie’s trying to do the same and if he wins all the marbles, he will be at serious risk (particularly in light of the recent screw-ups by the Secret Service). He probably knows that and is willing to take the risk. He may not be able to survive and accomplish his agenda, but I’m willing to take that chance.

    Bottom Line:
    Bernie is in it for the sake of the country.
    HRC is in it for her own sake – and the sake of the MIC.

    BTW: I don’t know if Bernie can win the Primary, given how the political machinery works, but I think he’s got a better shot than HRC against any GOP Clown.

    • NYT and WaPo are objectively left of center. They regularly work progressive angles. They’ve been hawkish at times, but so has the nation at large.

      I look forward to Hillary tearing Trump up live at the post-primary debates, and he won’t be able to escape for two whole hours, every time. He thought Megan Kelly was tough on him.

      Bernie could too, but Hillary has a bigger arsenal of facts.

  • While respecting some of the Times’ editorial positions, I feel that, given a long and well-documented history of bias, it’s a stretch to cite the newspaper as the voice of reason. I realize I’m repeating myself, but, given that I was late in commenting on the last post endorsing Hillary, I think the following background alone is good reason to question supporting Hillary in this election:

    1) Her long history of close relations with Wall Street, including a) service on the Wal-Mart board as an attorney, b) implicit support for her husband’s extensive deregulation of the financial sector that played key roles in the 2008 meltdown, c) voluminous campaign funding and speaker fees from the financial sector, d) the least convincing rebuttal in recorded history to Bernie’s accusation of her support for pre-2008 speculation when she said in effect, “Well, gosh, I told them to stop issuing those dodgy mortgages.”

    2) Her disastrous neocon foreign policies in tandem with Samantha Powers and Susan Rice together replaying the three witches from Macbeth, including a) using highly deceptive claims to justify the bombing of Libya and helping to usher in not only horrific chaos but also the new headquarters of ISIS, b) choosing Robert Kagan, a major neocon, as an advisor and working with his wife, Victoria Nuland on covert operations in Ukraine that have only added to the destabilization of the region, c) supporting the progressive encirclement of Russia through NATO, d) encouraging the mobilization of anti-Assad rebels that have always been riddled with fanatical elements, e) leaning farther to the right in her support for Israel’s current government than many of her Democratic contemporaries, f) making an unforgivable comment at her first debate when asked about her prime enemy and responding that it was “the Iranians.”

    • Just a couple points from my perspective: Russia needs restraining. Iran has since struck the deal she was supporting Obama on at the time and I doubt she’d answer the same today. Obama got a lot of Wall Street money too but he still signed Dodd-Frank. Hillary’s non-campaign speaking fees go into a top rated charitable foundation.

      I acknowledge she’s more hawkish than some on the left would like, but then again the world is more hawkish than some on the left want to recognize.

  • Robert Reich Nails It…,
    in his piece…, The Most Pragmatic Way to Fix American Democracy: Elect Bernie Sanders

    The Democratic contest has repeatedly been characterized as a choice between Hillary Clinton’s “pragmatism” and Bernie Sanders’s “idealism” – with the not-so-subtle message that realists choose pragmatism over idealism.

    But this way of framing the choice ignores the biggest reality of all: the unprecedented, and increasing, concentration of income, wealth and power at the very top, combined with declining real incomes for most and persistent poverty for the bottom fifth.

    The real choice isn’t “pragmatism” or “idealism.” It’s either allowing these trends to worsen, or reversing them. Inequality has reached levels last seen in the era of the “robber barons” in the 1890s. The only truly pragmatic way of reversing this state of affairs is through a “political revolution” that mobilizes millions of Americans.

    I am leaving out plenty of good stuff…, but he sums it up:

    But what about the “pragmatic” Hillary Clinton? I have worked closely with her and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she’s clearly the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.

    But the political system we now have is profoundly broken. Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have because he’s leading a political movement for change.

    • CommonDreams ranks right up there with US Uncut for cranking out nonsense.

      Where was this “revolution” last Congressional midterm? Where is it now in state polling?

      Wishful thinking. And lazy, at that. Sanders can’t accomplish jack alone but all these hopes are on his shoulders as if he’ll have support.

  •   You may be right that Sanders won’t be able to fix the broken system. Our political process may in fact be broken beyond repair. But IMO Clinton can – and would – make it worse. Would she make it as bad as Trump, Cruz, Rubio? Probably not, but that’s a question for the General Election.
      It’s interesting that many fault Sanders supporters as ‘unrealistic’, yet I really believe that Bernie could beat whoever the Repugs nominate. Hilary? I’m not as confident about. To my mind, those who declare it ‘unrealistic’ to think Bernie can win the nomination are deluding themselves to assume that if HRC is nominated, she will become Prez.

      • My fingers know how to automatically type this sentence now: Pre-primary general matchup polls are notoriously bad predictors. The layout will change dramatically as the candidate field narrows, or in this case, we see if the populists of each party actually pull votes in real life.

Leave a Reply