I don’t think a lot of us were expecting the New York Times to take its much-hyped endorsement in the Democratic primary and use it to recommend Amy Klobuchar for vice-president. Strangely, that’s exactly what they did.
Yes, I know. Supposedly they offered a split endorsement for president, giving a nod both to Klobuchar and to Elizabeth Warren. This is their attempt to punt on the big issue of the Democratic primaries—radicals versus moderates—by picking one of each.
The Democratic primary contest is often portrayed as a tussle between moderates and progressives…. Both the radical and realist models warrant serious consideration…. That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocate for each approach.
But this actually damns Warren with faint praise. If Warren were really an effective advocate for the more radical approach, wouldn’t she have been able to win over the New York Times and earn their endorsement outright? After all, the citadels of the elite left-leaning media are her base in this election. So rather than functioning as an endorsement of Warren, the Times‘s split serves as a reminder that her candidacy is far from compelling.
Read the rest at The Bulwark.