The Times claims they endorsed both Warren and Klobuchar. I’m sure, as Atrios suggests, they thought they were doing something edgy, attention-grabbing, and super-smart.
But in reality, they only endorsed Klobuchar. They stuck a knife in Warren. And twisted.
Here’s how the Times constructed the difference between the two of them:
The history of the editorial board would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward, within the realities of a constitutional framework and a multiparty country. But the events of the past few years have shaken the confidence of even the most committed institutionalists. We are not veering away from the values we espouse, but we are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird those values.
There are legitimate questions about whether our democratic system is fundamentally broken. Our elections are getting less free and fair, Congress and the courts are increasingly partisan, foreign nations are flooding society with misinformation, a deluge of money flows through our politics. And the economic mobility that made the American dream possible is vanishing.
Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it.
That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
Got that? There are only two ways forward. Warren’s a radical. Klobuchar’s a realist. This all but guarantees that if Warren wins the nomination, Trump will run ads in swing districts that begin, “Even the leftist NY Times calls Warren a radical.”
(BTW, of course, Warren is no radical . She’s demonstrated over and over that she’s a moderately progressive and pragmatic liberal. The Times constructed their false radical/realist dichotomy out of thin air.)
The Times devotes a considerable amount of space, roughly four long paragraphs, to criticizing Warren:
…a conservative federal judiciary will be almost as significant a roadblock for progressive change. For Ms. Warren, that leaves open questions — ones she was unwilling to wrestle with in our interview. Ms. Warren has proposed to pay for an expanded social safety net by imposing a new tax on wealth. But even if she could push such a bill through the Senate, the idea is constitutionally suspect and would inevitably be bogged down for years in the courts. A conservative judiciary also could constrain a President Warren’s regulatory powers, and roll back access to health care.
In her primary campaign, however, she has shown some questionable political instincts. She sometimes sounds like a candidate who sees a universe of us-versus-thems, who, in the general election, would be going up against a president who has already divided America into his own version of them and us.
This has been most obvious in her case for “Medicare for all,” where she has already had to soften her message, as voters have expressed their lack of support for her plan. There are good, sound reasons for a public health care option — countries all over the world have demonstrated that. But Ms. Warren’s version would require winning over a skeptical public, legislative trench warfare to pass bills in Congress, the dismantling of a private health care system. That system, through existing public-private programs like Medicare Advantage, has shown it is not nearly as flawed as she insists, and it is even lauded by health economists who now advocate a single-payer system.
American capitalism is responsible for its share of sins. But Ms. Warren often casts the net far too wide, placing the blame for a host of maladies from climate change to gun violence at the feet of the business community when the onus is on society as a whole. The country needs a more unifying path. The senator talks more about bringing together Democrats, Republicans and independents behind her proposals, often leaning on anecdotes about her conservative brothers to do so. Ms. Warren has the power and conviction and credibility to make the case — especially given her past as a Republican — but she needs to draw on practicality and patience as much as her down-and-dirty critique of the system.
By contrast, here’s the Times’s critique of Klobuchar. It lasts all of one mildly concerned paragraph plus one sentence about her positioning in the horse race:
Reports of how Senator Klobuchar treats her staff give us pause. They raise serious questions about her ability to attract and hire talented people. Surrounding the president with a team of seasoned, reasoned leaders is critical to the success of an administration, not doing so is often the downfall of presidencies. Ms. Klobuchar has acknowledged she’s a tough boss and pledged to do better. (To be fair, Bill Clinton and Mr. Trump— not to mention former Vice President Biden — also have reputations for sometimes berating their staffs, and it is rarely mentioned as a political liability.)
Ms. Klobuchar doesn’t have the polished veneer and smooth delivery that comes from a lifetime spent in the national spotlight, and she has struggled to gain traction on the campaign trail.
Between the two, the Times is clearly endorsing Klobuchar. But they’re going further. They are trashing Warren. In addition to falsely branding Warren a radical, the Times’ criticism of Warren is, for the most part, gratuitous and insubstantial. For example:
The Times does not describe what is “consitutionally suspect” about a wealth tax. And it’s assumed by them that Warren, a master negotiator, could not create a constitutionally valid tax that has a significant impact on the amassing of obscenely large fortunes.
Yes, Warren uses us vs them rhetoric. Just like FDR:
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.
I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.
In other words, sometimes it really is “us versus them.” And like FDR before her, Warren is absolutely right.
RE: Medicare for All, Warren has made it very clear — and lost some progressive support making it very clear — that the ultimate goal is subject to negotiation, compromise, and being rolled out in stages. In short, she sets lofty goals for healthcare but is quite realistic and pragmatic in trying to achieve them.
As for Warren laying “a host of maladies from climate change to gun violence at the feet of the business community,” the Times doesn’t engage with this at all. They assert that Warren is being unfair to business but they give no reasons or evidence that engages, let alone refutes, Warren’s analyses of business’s role in these maladies.
The Times is playing a cynical game here, played so that they won’t lose their (increasingly dismayed) cohort of progressive readers who were appalled at the awful way they treated Clinton in ’16 and how they still refuse to describe Trump as the racist he clearly is. They are pretending to endorse both Warren and Klobuchar, but they’re really only endorsing Klobuchar. Worse, they are helping Trump brand Warren as somehow outside the mainstream and they are doing so using the same tactics Trump uses: by name-calling and empty assertions.
