The New York Times editorial board announced Saturday that they are endorsing Hillary Clinton and John Kasich for the Democratic and Republican nominations, respectively.
“Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office…and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm,” writes the Times.
This goes against what the paper wrote when they endorsed her for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination: “By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. ‘Firstness’ is not a reason to choose.”
The editorial board does not think her opponent Bernie Sanders is suited for the nomination due to their belief that his proposals could not realistically be achieved. This directly echoes past Hillary Clinton attacks. (RELATED: Hillary Attacks Sanders In New Ads)
Regarding attacks other candidates have aimed at Clinton, the Times says, “Some of the campaign attacks are outrageous, like Donald Trump’s efforts to bring up Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity.” On Jan. 21 the Times ran a piece titled, “90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women.”
The Times does agree that “those about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server, are legitimate and deserve forthright answers.” (RELATED:State Dept. Indicates Hillary’s Most ‘Complex’ Emails Have Yet To Be Released)
Another editorial endorsing John Kasich attacks current front-runners Donald Trump and Sen. [crscore]Ted Cruz[/crscore]. It criticizes Trump’s support for “deporting Mexican immigrants,” and says he invented that view as he went along campaigning. The editorial also says Cruz’s campaign “isn’t about constitutional principles; it’s about ambition.” It continues to then attack Sen. [crscore]Marco Rubio[/crscore] for in their view “embracing the alarmist views of the front-runners.”
It isn’t until the sixth paragraph that the editorial board writes: “Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, though a distinct underdog, is the only plausible choice for Republicans tired of the extremism and inexperience on display in this race. And Mr. Kasich is no moderate. As governor, he’s gone after public-sector unions, fought to limit abortion rights and opposed same-sex marriage.”
The reasons they support Kasich for the Republican nomination seem to be ones that primary voters are doubtful to share.
“He has been capable of compromise and believes in the ability of government to improve lives. He favors a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and he speaks of government’s duty to protect the poor, the mentally ill and others ‘in the shadows.’ While Republicans in Congress tried more than 60 times to kill Obamacare, Mr. Kasich did an end-run around Ohio’s Republican Legislature to secure a $13 billion Medicaid expansion to cover more people in his state,” writes the Times.