Just pick the nominee's and be done with it already!

Great! Obama IS a great cat, but Hillary is the right woman for the job at the right time. She's intelligent and shows a deep understanding for many issues. And the resolve. She sure has the resolve. We need resolve that has been there, and done that in the War on Terror. She can say first hand that didn't work. I can't wait to see the ClintonS back in the White House.

Why is McCain the media darling of the Republic Party? He wants American soldiers to keep dying in Iraq for the next 100 years, while a majority of Americans want ALL of our troops brought home from Iraq RIGHT NOW!

I'm reading this post just as Rudy blathers on about Ronald Reagan, and the New York Times. I guess he found something different to parrot endlessly instead of 911.

Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan. 911, 911, 911. Hi I'm Rudy, did I mention Septemer 11th?

Stop the presses. The republican debate has just become an a%s kiss-a-thon.

This endorsement is going to hurt McCain badly. Republicans hate the NY Times. Expect this to help Mitt Romney.

Unlike the Tribune and Bruce Dolt, the NY Times actually uses common sense in its endorsements.

The Trib is laughable with their 100+ years of Republic party endorsements.

The Chicago Tribune...proudly lowering the level of political discourse for more than 100 years. Nice job.

I'm glad to see the Republican-hating NY Times spew hatred for all the Republican candidates--and then endorse John McCain.

Many Republicans use the NY Times as their political guide--if the NYT supports a candidate, vote for someone else.

swamptoolbruce,

where is your anger at the swamp coverage of the repuke debate?

why aren't you crying a river over the biased, liberal media coverage of your party's clown contest?

what tools do they use in a swamp?

absolutely the right person at the right time...the right woman at this time...we are beginning to make the turn...

The NY Times is full of it. They said in the editorial endorsement that they opposed the war, but will still endorse Hillary. That is not true. The Times wrote many stories supporting the administration in the lead up to the war.

The Clinton's are despicable, and the Times should simply stay out of the endorsement business rather than endorse a candidate that will "say anything, but change nothing."

When the Times endorsed McCain it might be one of the more truthful political stories they have written since Billy left Town.

The NYTimes is clueless as usual.

John McCain's signature piece of legislation is the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill, Its perceived goal was to "take the money out of politics." Well, not only did McCain-Feingold fail to, "take the money out of politics," more money was spent than ever before during the 2004 elections. Moreover, the bill unconstitutionally curbed free speech, protected incumbents, and opened up the door to regulating bloggers. If McCain says that he'll do for America what he did for campaign finance reform, it should be taken as a threat.

Let me get this straight -The NY Times says Hilliary sometimes embellishes her resume thereby admitting she is a liar. Both Clintons are liars and we want more of them? What about Whitewater, Lewinskygate, her failed health plan and cleaning out the White House when they left. Look at the crooks they surround themselves with. And how is she going to control Saudi Arabia when the Clintons are reaping in 10-20 million a year from investments in the banks there. She's not going to get involved there. Listen to Dick Morris - nobody knows them better than he.

I'm glad to see the Times endorse McCain. Mainly because it must burn limpbags butt. If this keeps up , he'll be back on Oxycontin in no time.

From the NY Times editorial:

"We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe."

The 51% who voted for Bush in 2004 a "small, angry fringe!"

I'm not surprised the Democrats who write Swamp articles left this out. John McCain, the favorite Republican of the Left, has been endorsed by the bankrupt, good only for lining bird cages NY Slimes. I hope the other Republican candidates trumpet this endorsement.

Well, the pompous-sounding Times' Editorial Board has just picked two god-awful stinkers, actually rather more than a stinker in McCain's case.

Both of these people represent all the conventional, arrogant, and tiresome attitudes of American Empire, not a whiff of anything new or thoughtful, and I suspect that's why the Board has named them.

The Times, despite its reputation within the United States as a liberal paper, has always been a staunch defender of Empire and the status quo.

Clinton is a brittle personality, believing she is somehow entitled to the nomination, making almost delusional claims to experience, and bringing the blessings of nepotism to high office.

As for McCain, he is simply nuts, a genuinely unbalanced mind. The last thing the world needs after seven years of Bush.

Hillary and Obama are fully capable of leading .It seems like CNN cant stop its relentless injection of race into the process. It started a while ago when fun was poked on Obama's name. How astonishing it was to bring Kenya's ugly political violence alongside Obama's parenthood several times on the tube during a crucial New Hampshire Primary days ? Voters dont care about gender or race as factors or benchmarks for good governance. They want to listen carefully to avoid "weapons of mass destruction-like" entrapment which the news media failed to pursue as vigorously as they are at race issues. SICK AND TIRED OF IT !!

Why is the New York Times endorsing anyone? I thought a Newspaper was supposed to report information on the election and not take a side. That really could have a unfair swaying of American minds.

I was wondering where the outrage of all those Hollywood stars coming out to endorse Huck and McCain?

The old gray lady endorses socialists and environmental wackos who want amnesty for illegals like Hillary and John McCain. Read George Will, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin's columns don't pay any attention to Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol or Mort Kondracke they are McCainiacs and can't understand why Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Mark Levin won't follow them off this McCain cliff. McCain is not a maverick he is a liberal Democrat. GOP don't nominate him to please the drivebys or other liberals. Why let your avowed enemies pick the GOP nominee for 08! Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Brucie:

It's now 2008 - how many of that 51% now would vote for Bush??

And Bush called this victory a "mandate" for his policies!! Remembe all the political capital he had after the election to get his SS scheme passed?? That went down in flames real fast!!!

Am I surprised to read the Times backs Clinton? Not at all.
P.S. What did that endorsemnt cost Clinton?

You know, I'm really starting to hope McCain get's the Republican nomination so that we can see RNCBruce and Jerry Whiteguy's heads explode. Their whole world view would be shattered.

McCain should reject the endorsement. The New York Times is the jihadists' best friend. There editorial positions are the antithesis of McCain's stated plans to win the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why take an endorsement from an organization that will only hamstring the administration's, any administrations', attempts to achieve its foreign policy goals?

What's to like?

NAFTA? Welfare reform? Dont Ask, Don't Tell? The Communications Decency Act? Easing media ownership laws? Defense of Marriage Act?

This is some of the legislation Bill Clinton signed into law. Most of it in an effort to save his presidency after the disastrous failure of Hillary's healthcare reform bill lost congress to the Republicans.

Obama is right, Clinton didn't shift the American debate our way. The Clintons just triangulated their way through the 1990's doing their best to ameliorate the worst aspects of Republican legislation.

In the end the man who told us if we worked hard and played by the rules broke the rules, got caught and allowed the Republicans to stifle any gains he could have made for us. We lost congress and he couldn't even help Al Gore become his successor.

If we nominate Hillary and she gets elected you can expect more of the same small bore efforts. These two won't build the huge mandate we need for the great changes that have to be made. There will be no coattails. They won't change the debate. They've never even tried.

Some of these people sound like Bruce. We don't like the message, we kill the messenger.

Go HILLARY and OBAMA!!

Why take an endorsement from an organization that will only hamstring the administration's, any administrations', attempts to achieve its foreign policy goals?

Posted by: Jeff | January 25, 2008 10:37 AM

McCain's policy goals being more wars, endless slaughter and the ever increasing militarization of american life.

I did like that the NY Times (home of Jayson Blair journalism since 2003) did get this part right about Giuliani, he has been "exploit[ing] his city's and the country's nightmare to promote his presidential campaign."

A quick internet search uncovered the NY Times editorial when Rudy Giuliani left office. And at the time the NYT was full of praise;

"Helping New York survive Sept. 11 was a mission that actually occupied only a few months of Mr. Giuliani's eight years in office, but it seems as if he had been in training for it all along. He always ran the city like a warrior king. His greatest successes were not the times he fought hardest, since this mayor always fought as if he were single-handedly protecting a room full of babies from a fire-breathing dragon. His finest victories came when he chose a target worthy of his implacable passion.

… He made New Yorkers believe it was possible for New York to be secure and clean and under control, and he made the rest of the world believe it, too. The economic boom was a national phenomenon, but for New York, the surge in the tourism industry owed a great deal to Mr. Giuliani's determination to create a new and unfamiliar spirit of civility. ... It would be easy to go on about the things Mr. Giuliani failed to do — New York City has so many problems and crises and needs that all mayors leave office with far more losses than wins. The most its residents can expect of a mayor is that he — or someday she — accomplish one big thing, as Mayor Koch did in restoring the city's financial health. If that one achievement is important enough, it will come to stand for everything. When measured in that way, Mr. Giuliani more than did the job."

(NY Times 12-30-2001).

Rudy was the NYT's hero in 2001 when he left office. Now the NYT is saying Rudy's a bum. Which NYT editorial do you trust? Possibly the earlier; probably neither.

Not all Republicans hate the New York Times - or the media. And, as a staunch Republican from the day I could vote, I think this is one of the best summaries of the facts of who is likely to win the nominations that I seen thus far.

I don't see this as an endorsement as much as they think they know who's going to win.

I am SO tired of people saying - 'all Republicans' - as if you have met them all - or see anything outside of your own narrow viewpoint. And...Romney??? Whatever...

Endless slaughter of terrorists who would attack our homeland, kill nearly 3,000 Americans and wage jihad against our way of life? You betcha!

P.S. Any war against an enemy who claims no national allegiance but only a unified hatred of the West is, by definition, an ongoing one.

Rather, I think the NY Times, just like the nation, is disgusted by how Rudy's campaign has tried to turn every question and every issue addressed to into an opportunity to talk about Giuliani's performance during 9/11. It's an exploitation.

"Endless slaughter of terrorists who would attack our homeland, kill nearly 3,000 Americans and wage jihad against our way of life? You betcha!"

Yes, Jeff loves the fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, not terrorists, civilians, are dead. He and his hero Senator McCain would love to kill a few hundred thousand Iranian civilians too. (McCain thinks that's a really funny thing to laugh about) There just isn't enough death for them.

So apparently voting one way and then saying the exact opposite, as Clinton has done throughout the war in Iraq, is preferable to admitting a former mistake (two for Edwards if I'm not mistaken).

For a supposed bastion of liberal thinking, the NYT blows.

Actually, attacks and civillian death rates are down to their lowest numbers since 2003 thanks to the surge that McCain called for three years before Bush. US deaths are down 80 percent; civilian deaths, 75 percent; car bombs and suicide attacks, 60 percent (source: the Washington Post).

Don't you hate it, JT, when the facts refute the defeatist position you take to fuel your political agenda? I'm glad people like you weren't around during WWII or there would have been a movement to "just let Germany and Japan live and call a ceasefire."

JT, something else that totally cuts the legs out from the democrats "endless war" argument:

Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) – defined as military and police units -- have increased by a number of 110 thousand during the last year. That has to hurt when the sick and twisted position you've taken is that your own nation, the US, can't win in Iraq.

How can the Times endorse Clinton when a month ago they had an article about all (probably not) the Clinton's shady deals..

Clinton's are dividers not uniters.

Go Obama... otherwise I am a Republican again.

JT You are right. To put another people through what we put the Iraqis through from the beginning of this war is reason enough to try to avoid going through it again.

What's this the New York Times is suddenly "Fair and Balanced".?