Having grown up in Chicago, I have become accustomed to Democrats casting more than one ballot. The political machines have long had the slogan, “one person, two votes.” Okay! That was not really the Democrat machine’s slogan, it was just its practice.
Now we have the New York Times editorial endorsement in the Democrat presidential race, and you would have to vote twice to follow their recommendation. In a unique and bizarre editorial, the Times recommends votes for Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren AND Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar – or was that an “OR?”
No matter, it is an addled brained editorial that seems to play to the great divide in the Democratic Party between the radical left and the so-called moderates. If you are a Democrat-style “moderate,” the Times suggests you vote for Klobuchar. If you are a nut-case progressive, the Times encourages a vote for Warren.
It is noteworthy that the Times only endorsement common denominator is that you should vote for a woman. Apparently, the editorial board did not consider Bernie Sanders’ belief that a woman cannot be elected President of the United States in these Times – if, indeed, that was his opinion and not merely the false claim by Warren. On that account, we can only say for sure that one of them is lying.
Picking the women may reveal the feminist bias of the Times’ editorial board itself. It goes beyond championing left-wing feminist issues. You need to recall that the Times hired Sarah Jeong to help guide its editorial policy. The newspaper management was not in the least troubled by her man-hating (and racist) tweets in which she said, “white men are bullshit.” And if that is not bad enough, she wrote, “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” In 2019, the Times promoted Jeong to a more visible position as a columnist.
The Times’ double endorsement is actually a non-endorsement. It does not pick the newspapers’ favorite, it plays to the division in the Democratic Party. If you are among the radical left, you should vote for Warren. If you are one of those they call a moderate Democrat, you should vote for Klobuchar.
Perhaps more interesting than who the Times DID endorse is who they did not. There are two candidates vying for the top spot – one representing the moderate wing and one the radical left. The most obvious person not getting the imprimatur of the New York Times editorial are the current co-leaders of the pack – former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. The Times also passed over the hometown boy, Michael Bloomberg. Are they too old? To male? Or both?
The editorial discounted Biden – and presumably Bloomberg — because it is time to pass the generational torch. Really. Endorsing 70-year-old Warren is hardly passing the torch. Even Klobuchar – at 60 – would only be a half-step in torch-passing.
Passing over the frontrunners, the Times is going with two very different women – one is just now rising a bit out of oblivion (Klobuchar), while the other seems to be sinking into it (Warren). It is unlikely that either of these women will actually be the Democrats’ standard bearer.
Warren’s highly promoted “plans” seem to have run her campaign aground by promising too much without any realistic “plan” to pay for all that stuff. She may also have the worst credibility of any of the Democrat contenders. The only way she could possibly regain the lead on the left, over Sanders, is for the Vermont senator to have another heart attack.
It is true that Klobuchar is coming up in the polls. But she has a long way to go to be a threat to either Biden or Bloomberg. If Biden faulters, it is more likely that Bloomberg will be there – with billions of dollars — to pick up the moderate lead.
Ironically, it is Klobuchar that could be the most appealing and unifying of the Democrat field. She comes across as a commonsense person – not an ideologue. And she is not wrong to note that she wins in fly-over America. Klobuchar neither has the baggage of Biden or the nuttiness of Sanders and Warren. Klobuchar stands apart from the east coast bubble which Biden, Sanders and Warren represent.
In the world of political reality and analysis, the Times editorial makes no sense. Therefore, it seems arguable that the endorsements were merely meant for the Times to fly the feminist flag. Maybe they are looking for more female subscribers. Maybe … oh hell, who knows what they were thinking in that tower at 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York.
So, there ‘tis.