New York Times Wants Only Women For President

New York Times Wants Only Women For President

New York Times Wants Only Women For President

A paper that’s been around as long as the New York Times should know how endorsements work. The editorial board is supposed to choose the candidate that they think is the best. Newsflash, NYT – you’re not allowed to vote twice for president.

However, in a totally clueless and gutless move, the New York Times decided to endorse BOTH Senator Elizabeth Warren AND Senator Amy Klobuchar.

Their explanation was, let’s say, a little strange and underwhelming.

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.”

So, this is a “split the baby” scenario. Times readers are told that it’s okay to go with the “radical” who constantly gets caught in her own lies, or the “realist” who got a second look from the editorial board solely because she was a woman, and because she has deadly aim with a binder. Bottom line: they want a woman president, but instead of choosing one over the other, they end up slighting them both by NOT picking one.

There are some admissions by the New York Times editorial board that is sure to infuriate the Bernie contingent. News flash, everyone – Bernie Sanders is OLD.

Mr. Sanders would be 79 when he assumed office, and after an October heart attack, his health is a serious concern. Then, there’s how Mr. Sanders approaches politics. He boasts that compromise is anathema to him. Only his prescriptions can be the right ones, even though most are overly rigid, untested and divisive. He promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda. Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.”

Good news, then, that Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left.”

Translation: Bernie refused to kiss up to us and make us feel good about supporting him.

Given the week that Bernie had, courtesy of CNN sucking up to Warren, this has to feel like a pretty big insult. Even more so when you consider the editorial’s very next sentence:

Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, my sides. Well, that’s one way to spin all the lies. However, the NYT then admits that Warren’s “Medicare For All” plan isn’t popular in the least, and has cost her support in the polls. This is why they’re backing a second horse in the race by endorsing Klobuchar as well. She’s safer than Warren on policy, and she isn’t an old white man like Joe Biden.

Mr. Biden maintains a lead in national polls, but that may be a measure of familiarity as much as voter intention. His central pitch to voters is that he can beat Donald Trump. His agenda tinkers at the edges of issues like health care and climate, and he emphasizes returning the country to where things were before the Trump era. But merely restoring the status quo will not get America where it needs to go as a society. What’s more, Mr. Biden is 77. It is time for him to pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders.”

Good news, then, that Amy Klobuchar has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic center. Her vision goes beyond the incremental. Given the polarization in Washington and beyond, the best chance to enact many progressive plans could be under a Klobuchar administration.”

If you haven’t noticed the theme yet, it really is “no country for old white men,” according to the New York Times opinion board. They want a radical, like Warren, who makes them feel smart and validates them (yes, the press is made up of very needy people). But they realize that the American public isn’t in love with Warren, so they’re offering everyone a backup date in Klobuchar. Notice the wording in their support of both women. “Bernie’s too old, but at least we have Warren to take his place.” “Biden’s too old, but at least we have Klobuchar to take his place.” There’s nothing in there that says “we are totally blown away by this candidate because of the strength of their character/ideas/charisma/policy/ability/experience.” Nothing. It’s just that these two women, according to the New York Times, are less objectionable than the two men currently leading the polls.

And then the Times acknowledges that they’re not so much promoting a candidate as they are just wanting a woman – any woman – to replace Hillary Clinton in their hearts. So, let them fight.

There will be those dissatisfied that this page is not throwing its weight behind a single candidate, favoring centrists or progressives. But it’s a fight the party itself has been itching to have since Mrs. Clinton’s defeat in 2016, and one that should be played out in the public arena and in the privacy of the voting booth. That’s the very purpose of primaries, to test-market strategies and ideas that can galvanize and inspire the country.”

Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren right now are the Democrats best equipped to lead that debate.”

May the best woman win.”

Gag. Seriously, both Warren and Klobuchar should be insulted by this open pandering, but they aren’t. Both of them expressed their satisfaction at being the NYT’s picks, even if they now have to duke it out.

The New York Times opinion board chickened out. They want Warren, because they long for the communism of Bernie Sanders – this is the paper of Walter Duranty, after all – but they want it in a less obnoxious package that might be easier to sell to the American voting public. Klobuchar is just their second option – and given her current status in the polls, she won’t care that she’s being tossed the first runner-up crown in this political pageant. If either woman had any dignity, they would refuse the endorsement on the grounds that the rationale for picking them is all about their genitalia, not their ideas. However, in this climate, they probably will take that as a compliment, not a slight.

Featured image via Pixabay, cropped, Pixabay license

Written by

  • Wfjag says:

    Actually, the NYT wants anyone other than Trump as President. It’s Editorial Board may suppress stories so the public doesn’t see them, but they see those stories. They know that the Biden family corruption is too big, and is being revealed by too many sources to be suppressed through the election. And, Slo Joe doesn’t have the mental acuity of a Bill (or even Hillary) Clinton to avoid admitting to sleazy deals his influence peddling kin have enriched themselves through the public disc. And, they know that Bernie is revealing himself as the Champion of Dictators and wants to be Chairman Sanders. Both men will defeat themselves. Buttigieg is a micro weight. Being the Openly Gay Candidate will drive black voters away, many of whom will discover that the Republican Party is the party of freedom and never return.

    This leaves only the women candidates. The NYT hopes that a campaign based on the type of open sexism Hillary used (It’s Time For A Woman President) will defeat Trump.

    Every other stratagem has failed – Russia Hoax, Stormy Daniels was a tempest in a silicon enhanced teapot (if that much), the Impeachment is a debacle, the economy is roaring and employment is soaring, America’s military and economic might is being restored world wide, and, after a long time, people are again proud to be Americans. All the contrived scandals have fallen apart or backfired. And worst – other Republicans are adopting the Hit Back Twice As Hard strategy and finding that it works.

    That leaves only gender as an issue. Liz Warren is such a known liar and scold to be electable. So, Unknown Amy – a Stealth Candidate – is the fall back.

  • slyons2424 says:

    “they know that Bernie is revealing himself as the Champion of Dictators and wants to be Chairman Sanders.” Seriously?!? I notice you go by the handle “Wfjag.” I’m guessing the “g” on the end of that stands for…goebbels, considering the PROPAGANDA you are spewing. Never heard such ridiculous propaganda in my life there, jojo. Bernie wants to give you ACTUAL Healthcare? Gads! Bernie wants to give you a REAL Education? Egads! Bernie wants Corporations to start paying TAXES like you and me?!?! O…M…G!!! The ONLY one who wants to be called “Chairman” is Trump. SHAME on you for lying about Bernie. And shame on you for lying about the “Republican Party is the party of freedom….” They are FASCIST, NEOLIBERALS who have, in the last 40+ years since the POWELL MEMO(1971)have stolen so much the have created the GREATEST WEALTH INEQUALITY IN HISTORY.(google it–you’ve been lied to, misinformed & brainwashed, my brother/sister) I realize you Repugs like “alternative ‘facts'” these days…but…sorry…all you’ve done here is soil yourself in public. THAT’S gotta leave a mark. SAD!

    • Scott says:

      Wow.. like they say, denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.. Everything Wfjag said was spot on, and I’m sure you’re just ignoring that Bernie took his honeymoon in RUSSIA… and where exactly is he going to get the money to pay for all that “free” shit??? ooh, that’s right, he’ll confiscate it from those that actually earned it.. And don’t forget, he’ll be sure to disarm the populace, so when “useful” idiots like you realize they’ve been lied to, they can’t fight back… There’s really no point in debating any of the comments you made, they’re all demonstrably false, the healthcare one is especially amusing… take an honest look at “socialized” medicine in the country of your choice, and it’s clear to all but the most heavily indoctrinated that care is rationed, delayed, and in general substandard (that’s why those that can afford to do so travel where for care?? OOH yeah, THE UNITED STATES!)..

      As Wfjag, I’d bet it has something to do with Judge Advocate General…

      I’m sure you’re used to your delusional drivel being taken for gospel over on Huffpost, and others like it, but sadly for you, most on this blog (trolls like you are the notable exceptions) are capable of rational, critical thinking…Sooo, you might want to go back to the kids table…

      • Joe in PNG says:

        JFK: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country,”

        Bernie: “Ask, no, demand that your country give you stuff you didn’t earn!”. I’m sure Marxism will work out as well as it did for Russia, Germany, China, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, North Korea, Angola, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and all the other failed Socialist states people like Bernie have praised… right up until the point that the failure becomes super obvious to everyone. Then go with the classic ‘not real Socialism’.

        But, fear not Bernie bot! Prince Azakawe of Nigeria is willing to give you a few million dollars- just pass on your bank & SSN info.

        • slyons2424 says:

          IF you were a serious person with ANY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE about this, I would be happy to debate you, bruh…but it is obvious you struggle with word meanings, eh? So, here’s a primer for you, lil Joe…”Democratic Socialism” is what FDR instituted in 1933 with SOCIAL SECURITY. I’m sure you–like all rightwingnuts–will damn sure collect YOURS when the time comes. YOU have lived in a “Democratic Socialist” country YOUR ENTIRE LIFE, my brother. You know, Public Schools, Fire, Police, the Military(your fav!) Highways, bridges, Farm subsidies, Public Parks, Public Transportation, Snow removal…SERVICES AD NAUSEUM! YOU ARE A “SOCIALIST” my ignorant lil friend. YOU BEEN A “SOCIALIST” YOUR ENTIRE LIFE, lil joe.

          • Joe in PNG says:

            ALL CAPS doesn’t make your stuff read any smarter.

          • Scott says:

            Sorry jackass, wrong again.. (other than the fact that FDR was a democratic socialist, that you got spot on, and one of the reasons he was a terrible President.. along with lying to the public about his disability, interring American Citizens of Japanese decent, and the ponzi scheme that is Social security). As to collecting social security, there’s to points.. one, since we are FORCED to contribute, of course we should get our money back, second, I have a private pension, so social security will be minimal for me anyway. As to Fire, Police, and Military, those are things that the founders felt govt should provide, and public schools are a leftist concept, that along with the department of education are and have been used since their inception to indoctrinate children in leftist thought.
            As to actual knowledge, I would put my intelligence, life experience and overall knowledge of this, and most any subject up against yours any day. You have to resort to infantile comments like Bruh, little friend etc. You are obviously a sad, lonely little man with delusions of grandeur..

            • slyons2424 says:

              I am loathe to begin my rebuttal this way, but you started this tone of discourse right out of the box, Scott. You spouted “so when “useful” idiots like you realize they’ve been lied to,” as well as “I’m sure you’re used to your delusional drivel being taken for gospel…” So…who is the real the “infantile” one here? I have found it expedient in past to align with the mentality of those whose comments are thinly veiled, or as with you, direct, Ad Hominem attacks in lieu of any substance, mostly because they are so often misinformed and they argue from an emotional place of ignorance–their Lizard Brain–as opposed to their “intellect.” Much like you began this “debate.” If you wish to acknowledge that you started in this vein, & that you will stop, I will desist in its continuance. I also agree that “Bruh” and “little Friend” are pejorative, & I will stop that, too, but again…just keeping in like-minded kind. It’s called “alignment,” Jackass. So, Jackass to Jackass, you ready to discuss the facts and stop the personal attacks? Then I will be happy to disabuse of your ignorance and misinformation
              First, the Founding Fathers did not believe that ” Fire, Police, and Military, those are things that the founders felt govt should provide.”
              In fact the first Government sponsored Fire department did not exist until almost the Civil War.
              Here’s an excerpt from Wiki:
              “The United States did not have government-run fire departments until around the time of the American Civil War. Prior to this time, private fire brigades competed with one another to be the first to respond to a fire because insurance companies paid brigades to save buildings.[7] Underwriters also employed their own Salvage Corps in some cities. The first known female firefighter Molly Williams took her place with the men on the dragropes during the blizzard of 1818 and pulled the pumper to the fire through the deep snow.
              On 1 April 1853, Cincinnati, Ohio featured the first professional fire department made up of 100% full-time employees.”
              Second, they also did not provide for “Police.” Police forces are a fairly modern invention–they began in earnest in America around 16 years after Robert Peel invented Policing for England in 1822(that’s why they are called “Bobbies.”)
              “In fact, the U.S. police force is a relatively modern invention, sparked by changing notions of public order, driven in turn by economics and politics, according to Gary Potter, a crime historian at Eastern Kentucky University.
              Policing in Colonial America had been very informal, based on a for-profit, privately funded system that employed people part-time. Towns also commonly relied on a “night watch” in which volunteers signed up for a certain day and time, mostly to look out for fellow colonists engaging in prostitution or gambling.”
              “The first publicly funded, organized police force with officers on duty full-time was created in Boston in 1838.”
              So, again, the “Founders “did not believe “Policing” should be Government provided, as you claim.
              Third. The founders did not believe the “Military” should be provided by the government. They actually did not believe in standing Armies.
              They had no desire to conscript Standing Armies. they did not believe Government should provide for them–they feared them as a means for tyranny and a mechanism for despotic Presidents to take away America’s hard-earned Freedom.
              The Founders had the notion of a “Citizen Militia” which could be readied, called upon and placed in force as needed. That is why the Second Amendment reads:
              “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
              “They knew that the US would require protection, and they believed that all it required was a citizen militia that could be activated, serve for the duration of an emergency and then be disbanded.
              They were wrong.
              By 1791 the fledgling US and its militias had been on the wrong end of some painful defeats, most notably at the Battle of Wabash. A standing army was authorised soon after, with the Legion of the United States being formed in 1792.”
              In addition to that, Madison wrote what is considered the most perspicacious passage on “Military” and war ever penned, IMHO.
              It has major resonance today, since it predicted the evils of what America has become with its Never-ending, Imperialistic Warmongering.
              ” Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
              So, Scott, my Brother…
              Three things you “knew” Which are actually are patently false on their face.
              I have, without pejoratives or Ad Hominems, disproved your claims.
              I hope that you will respond in kind, ala the Socratic Method, and if you have rebuttal, present it factually and in our newfound non-infantile fashion & spirit of Academia..
              I hope you do not simply “ghost” me after having been proven…mistaken and misinformed.
              I do have one question, though.
              Do you still maintain:
              “As to actual knowledge, I would put my intelligence, life experience and overall knowledge of this, and most any subject up against yours any day.”
              How about today, my Brother?

              • Scott says:


                You are correct that I started with unwarranted personal attacks, and for that I do apologize. I could offer excuses as to why I reacted that way at that time, but that’s all they’d be, so i’ll refrain from that as well, but you are right, I am better than that, and will endeavor to hold myself to a higher standard.
                My assertions that the founders intended to support Fire, Police and MIlitary were / are based on a broad interpretation of the Preamble to the Constitution..
                “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
                In that they did not mention those three services directly, you’re right, you got me.
                As to the History of the Fire Service in the United States, I am well aware of it, and have studied it for decades. In this case, given the risk to early America from fire, I believe that fire protection clearly falls under “promote the general welfare”
                As to the military, you are both right and wrong with your comments. While the Founders obviously had a different concept of what the military should look like (civilian militia vs. standing army), the fact remains that the did feel that when required, military forces were something that should fall under the purview of the govt. (even General Washingtons troops were paid / fed by the govt.)
                As to the “Never ending Imperialistic War-Mongering”, we’re obviously going to disagree on that, though some of your other comments on the subject, including the fear the Founders had of standing armies (though that was in general because of fears that it would be used against the people of this country, as they so often have in socialist countries).
                Most of the points / references you make I actually agree with (though we draw very different conclusions from them), in that the Founders (the Anti-Federalists anyway, not the Federalists), wanted very limited powers at the federal level (the exact opposite of the socialism you appear to champion), and wanted all things, including the three we have been talking about would be ideally handled at the state or local level whenever possible. They would find abhorrent the 17th amendment which took away power from the states, and tilted the intent of the bicameral congress we have.
                As to Bernie wanting to be “Chairman”, there’s a few perfect examples of where those on his staff would take us if they ever gain power in subsequent posts on this blog. I would suggest checking out those comments / videos.
                There is a reason that the comment “you vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out” exists, as well as the fact that every socialist country on earth has failed.Not a small part of that is that it is immoral and soulless to take what others have earned by govt. force to benefit others. (Even Senator David Crockett made this clear when he left Congress)

                I do appreciate that this last reply from you was a more scholarly approach, and I will continue to reciprocate. We will continue to disagree that I have been “proven…mistaken and misinformed.”, but if you hang around, you will find that “ghosting” is not my style.. (though that thing called life does occasionally get in the way, and delay my responses)

                • slyons2424 says:

                  I accept your mea culpa and appreciate the spirit in which it was given. I will endeavor to hold myself to a higher standard as well. As for your points above, it may take a bit of time to respond, for as you say: “though that thing called life does occasionally get in the way, and delay my responses”
                  A few points I hope to get back to you on soon are:
                  1) “Never ending Imperialistic War-Mongering”, we’re obviously going to disagree on that.”
                  This is in no way my complete response, but a preview:
                  Interesting…WE have been at “War” for all by 17 years of our Nation’s existence. Seems pretty Imperialistic to me. WE make the Romans look like amateurs.
                  WE also have over 800 Bases around the World.
                  There are only 195 Countries. WE are in none that do not have resources that WE covet & can define as in “OUR National ‘”Interest.”
                  “We learned that the United States has approximately 800 formal military bases in 80 countries, a number that could exceed 1,000 if you count troops stationed at embassies and missions and so-called “lily-pond” bases, with some 138,000 soldiers stationed around the globe.”
                  As you may find “The Nation” too left-leaning:
                  “Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined.”
                  As for the paragraph including the 17th Amendment reference, there is too much to unpack here with my time constraints, but I will address these points later:
                  “the Founders (the Anti-Federalists anyway, not the Federalists), wanted very limited powers at the federal level (the exact opposite of the socialism you appear to champion), and wanted all things, including the three we have been talking about would be ideally handled at the state or local level whenever possible.”
                  A quick retort would be that I believe that not only those 3 things, but Healthcare & Education & Childcare & Paid Family Leave, et al, ALL fall under the Constitution’s Preamble, just as you feel those 3 things would have been supported by the Founders.
                  I do not believe in “Originalism”–Scalia was simply wrong. I also do not believe that WE cannot fairly interpret the Constitution or “Founder’s Intent” in regards to: “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity….”
                  As for the Founder’s “find[ing] abhorrent the 17th amendment which took away power from the states, and tilted the intent of the bicameral congress we have.”
                  I am interested to hear why you think allowing the people to select their Senators rather than the States’ Legislatures takes away those Sates’ power? WE will most likely disagree on the issue of Senatorial representation as well, my brother.
                  Lastly, I hope to communicate to you what I mean by “Democratic Socialist.”
                  It is NOT the “Socialism” Of Marxism or Nazism–You may guess where I am going with this.
                  I am glad to have found someone who, while in much opposition to my view of the World, has the ability to elevate the discussion and focus on the ISSUES and not personalities, pejoratives and proselytizing.
                  I look forward to your reply, when it comes, and I hope to expound in more depth and detail on the issues WE have begun to discuss.
                  Thank you for the intelligent debate, Scott–it is a rare bird, indeed.

      • slyons2424 says:

        DENIAL, INDEED…”take an honest look at “socialized” medicine in the country of your choice, and it’s clear to all but the most heavily indoctrinated that care is rationed, delayed, and in general substandard (that’s why those that can afford to do so travel where for care?? OOH yeah, THE UNITED STATES!)” ” Seriously? An HONEST look? You have been brainwashed by the Neoliberals who are stealing your and your kids’ futures,my friend. What you claim is a LIE. Actually AMERICAN MEDICAL TOURISTS ARE GOING OVERSEAS to get away from UNAFFORDABLE AMERICAN HEALTHCARE. They have BETTER OUTCOMES OVERSEAS 7 ARE LESS EXPENSIVE than we do as well. Perhaps you should try researching things instead of taking FAUX “news” at face value? or Do you just regurgitate whatever trump says? My lil maga friend?

        • Joe in PNG says:

          Either a bot, or a troll pretending to be a Bernie Bro.

        • Scott says:

          Sorry dumbass, false equivalencies again, as well as making the ridiculous assumption that I believe that our healthcare system is perfect. Frivolous lawsuits, along with govt. price controls have driven prices through the roof in many aspects in the US. Tort reform, and getting govt out of healthcare would do much to relieve this as would stopping illegal immigration which is bankrupting may hospitals would be a great step in the right direction as well. Yes, drugs are more expensive here, some of that due to the realities of the free market, some due to research costs, which American consumers bear for American companies (yes, i think they should raise the prices charged in other countries to offset). True, some Americans do medical tourism, often for drugs / treatments not yet available in the US (see again govt interference), though sometimes just for cost savings because the procedures are done by “doctors” with degrees from diploma mills that are little better than a high school education, and often under conditions that would make a democrat run city look clean..
          Using Vox as a source is a joke, almost as good as snopes, or huffpo… again, the more you talk, the dumber you look. As a wise person once said, better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it, and remove all doubt.
          You’re obviously used to sites where the people you talk to are as immature and uninformed as you are, and have made the erroneous assumption that the same is true here. Sorry to disappoint, but the folks you will find here are far more intelligent and well read than you are, but by all means, keep trying!

          • Joe in PNG says:

            Could also be a paid troll. They are hitting all the ALL CAPS!!! points in the style guide.
            Hey, IsLying- McDonalds is hiring, and they offer a lot more dignity and better benefits over what Bernie’s campaign is paying you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner