Split Decision: How the 'Times' almost didn't back Hillary

[brooklynite]

from The New Republic:

On January 25, the New York Times endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton. At the time, the 1,100-word editorial stood out for both its tepidness and early appearance, coming near the front-end of the primary season. The piece ran in the paper the Friday before Super Tuesday, instead of in the Times's symbolically-important Sunday edition. Though the Times hailed Clinton, writing, "we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience," it also extolled the virtues of Barack Obama, noting "on the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two." The editors wrote: "By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama's appeal or his gifts."

According to Times sources, the paper almost didn't back Clinton. The divisions within the Gray Lady's editorial board mirrored the deep divide that has split Democrats in this tightly contested campaign. The 20-member board had initially leaned toward Obama, Times sources say. But in January, after the board had debated the endorsement in two separate sessions, Times chairman and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. decided to favor Clinton. Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, declining to comment on the internal debate, acknowledged that the vote was a difficult one. "It was a really hard one, no question about it," Rosenthal told me. "We talked about this within our board for hours. It was a very lively, interesting discussion. Several members of the board said it was the best discussion they've had."

As the primary season steams towards Ohio and Texas on March 4, some at the Times are now questioning the editorial board's judgment. "We're on the wrong side of history," one Times staffer said. Indeed, the Times stands apart from the majority of major American newspapers. Obama has racked up endorsements from more than 100 newspapers across the country, including the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times Company-owned Boston Globe, the Newark Star-Ledger, as well as the four biggest dailies in Texas and the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "The endorsement didn't win me any friends," Rosenthal admitted to me.

[Eurobabe]

1. Egg meet face. n/t

[grantcart]

2. yikes and this is the home town support wow

[K Gardner]

3. "On the Wrong Side of History".. indeed. It feels good to be on the right side !

[NastyRiffraff]

4. MANY editorial boards have internal differences on whom to support

or even whether or not to support anyone. This isn't new, or unusual.

BTW, newspapers don't, or shouldn't, endorse to be on the right side of history, or to "win friends." An honest endorsement means that the majority, or ideally a consensus, believes that one candidate can accomplish his or her stated policy more effectively, that he or she is more electable, or a combination of many factors. I don't see why the Times source, whoever it may be, is so upset. Newspapers endorse losing candidates all the time. Ask John Kerry, who had a large majority of newspaper endorsements versus Bush.

Personally, I pay little or no attention to any endorsement. They don't affect my decision.

[Bucky]

5. "a very lively interesting discussion. Several... said it was the best discussion they've had"

Wait, a prolonged and closely contested debate between colleagues led to a satisfying decision? You mean it didn't leave them permanently bitter and divided?