The New York Times dramatically unveiled its endorsement for the Democratic presidential primary Sunday that featured all the elements and fanfare of a reality TV special.
In a primetime televised event on FX, the Times editorial board broadcast its meetings with nine Democratic hopefuls seeking the adoration of New York media elites in their quest for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The end result? The elites on the New York Times editorial board couldn’t decide on their endorsement, so they virtue signaled their way out of making a decision by directing their readers to choose between the only two viable far-left female senators in the race.
The board’s editorial endorsement for Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren begins — after characterizing Trump’s presidency as fostering white nationalism, of course — by acknowledging that the current presidential field is the most progressive in recent memory.
“Nearly any of them would be the most progressive president in decades on issues like health care, the economy and government’s allocations of resources,” the board wrote. The difference between the candidates, the Times wrote, is how they plan to push the country toward a socialist utopia.
To be clear, Klobuchar is certainly far more moderate than Warren, but if nominated, Klobuchar would still be the most radical candidate nominated by a major party in years, despite her claim to the moderate lane in the Democratic primary.
Both support a $15 federal minimum wage, far fewer restrictions on abortion, a federal study of reparations for slavery, and the abolishment of the constitutionally-created Electoral College. These stances alone are enough to cast both senators as left-wing progressives.
Warren just happens to be particularly extreme. Student debt? Cancel it. Health care? Make it free. Open borders? You bet. Free college? Yes, please.
Klobuchar wants only two years of college to be free. That’s the “standard-bearer for the Democratic center,” according to the New York Times, after it admitted the contest lacks a “single, powerful moderate voice in this Democratic race.” To be fair, Klobuchar has at least rejected Warren’s calls on the debate stage for socialized medicine but has still pushed for the radical expansion of government health care.
For one of the wokest editorial boards in the country, the Times’ endorsement of Klobuchar and Warren makes perfect sense, given that the two senators are the only women left running in the race with any chance at clinching the Democratic nomination in Milwaukee. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii remains in the race but with dismal poll numbers not high enough to even land her on the Democratic debate stage.
If the Times wanted a purely socialist candidate, it would have endorsed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, but instead it declared Warren the progressive, female flag-bearer despite Sanders polling higher than the Massachusetts senator nationwide and in every early state contest. After all, the board’s endorsement editorial lauded Sanders’ progressive track record at length.
While it is impossible to conclude that Warren and Klobuchar earned the endorsement of the New York Times’ editorial board for the sole reason that they are women, it is likely their gender offered them some advantage over the other candidates given the circumstances surrounding their endorsement. After all, the Times refused to offer its adoration for simply one candidate and instead picked two senators on opposite ends of left-wing radicalism who happen to be the only competitive women left in the race. The Times’ history also indicates this is the case, with the board having endorsed Hillary Clinton in both the 2008 and 2016 primaries.
