The New York Times’ editorial board endorsed Saturday former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Ohio Gov. John Kasich for the presidential nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties.
Calling him “the only plausible choice for Republicans tired of the extremism and inexperience,” the Times cited Kasich’s move to expand Medicaid in the state and his support of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in its GOP endorsement.
The editorial also cast Kasich, a “distinct underdog,” in the race, as the only choice next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who they wrote is running a campaign fueled by “ambition,” and Donald Trump, who “invents his positions as he goes along.”
On the Democratic side, the board wrote while Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has proved to be a more “formidable” opponent than most expected, only Clinton has the breadth of experience and policy ideas to succeed in the race.
The editorial also called Clinton “one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.”
On the D side, their choice has been obvious for months. Timothy Egan* compares Sanders to Trump and Cruz, a couple of days ago David Brooks did the same thing. Today John Leland finds some fine distinction between angry Trump supporters and angry Sanders supporters. They´re out to scare the mushy middle.
*h/t to littlebluegirl for the correct name
Good thing Jeb! doesn’t give a fuck anymore 'cause this would sting.
I would never trust any publication that employs David Brooks (or George Will, for that matter). In fact, didn’t the NYTimes once consider Judith Miller employable?
Jeb! ran like he had to run for president, not because he wanted to.
No real surprise here. Clinton has experience and is strong and Kasich is the closest thing the Rethugs have to “sane.”