The New York Times editorial board broke with tradition and endorsed two separate Democratic candidates for president on Sunday.
The Times went with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar. According to a tally of the vote count, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker was the third choice despite dropping out of the race a week earlier and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg was fourth.
“Choosing who should face off against Mr. Trump also means acknowledging that Americans are being confronted with three models for how to govern this country, not two. Democrats must decide which of their two models would be most compelling for the American people and best suited for repairing the Republic,” the editorial board said. "Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren right now are the Democrats best equipped to lead that debate.”
"In this perilous moment, both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration,” they said. “For this reason, we are breaking with convention and putting our support behind, not one, but two candidates."
"Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller and a brilliant architect of regulation, where we would push back on some specific policy proposals, we are struck by how effectively her message has matched the moment,” they said. "Senator Klobuchar has a lengthy resume in the Senate, and bipartisan credentials that make her an invaluable dealmaker, she's shown she can unite the party, and perhaps the nation."
Frontrunners Biden, Sanders not in top four:
The Times surprised many observers when it left frontrunners Joe Biden and, to a certain extent, Bernie Sanders, out of their top four, which included Booker.
Biden’s message of "returning the country to where things were before the Trump era” would “not get America where it needs to go as a society,” the editorial board said, adding that it’s "time for him to pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders."
Sanders, they said, will be 79 if he takes office and “and after an October heart attack, his health is a serious concern.”
The editorial board likened Sanders to Trump.
“Then, there’s how Mr. Sanders approaches politics. He boasts that compromise is anathema to him,” they claimed. “Only his prescriptions can be the right ones, even though most are overly rigid, untested and divisive. He promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda. Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.”
Times slammed over endorsement:
“In this state of hyper-self-awareness and inflated ego, the Times has done what the Times does best: choke,” wrote Slate’s Ashley Feinberg. “Don’t like Warren? Well, don’t yell at the editorial board’s bosses just yet, because they hate her too, sort of! And don’t you think she’s just a little too patronizing? That’s why they also kind of endorsed Klobuchar, who’s currently polling at just under 4 percent. Mad about the Times endorsing Klobuchar? You can’t be, because they didn’t. Not really, at least.”
“I endorse the Chiefs and the 49ers to win the Super Bowl,” mocked former news anchor Dan Rather.
