January 24th, 2008
09:33 PM ET
10 years ago

New York Times backs Clinton, McCain

The two national frontrunners won the endorsement of the New York Times (Photo Credit: Getty Images)

(CNN) - The New York Times is endorsing hometown senator Hillary Clinton, but picked Republican John McCain over former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, for their party's presidential nominations in editorials published on the paper's Web site Thursday night, moments before the Republican presidential debate in Florida began.

The editorial board - which frequently clashed with Giuliani during his two mayoral terms - devoted the heart of its endorsement of McCain to a brutal repudiation of the New York Republican. "The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. ...Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking.

"The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign."

The paper said it disagreed with McCain over many issues but that "with a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field."

On the Democratic side, the Times called Clinton "the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House."

It said Barack Obama had built an "exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America."

Clinton, wrote the editorial board, "sometimes overstates the importance of résumé," but "hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

"We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading."

The Times, which backed Clinton in both her 2000 and 2006 Senate bids, also urged her to "take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign."

New York's voters head to the polls on Super Tuesday, February 5.

UPDATE: Shortly after the endorsement was posted, several opposing campaigns, including Rudy Giuliani's, issued releases highlighting it - since the support of the paper's liberal editorial board is not necessarily a helpful one for a GOP presidential candidate.

The Giuliani campaign even included a link to the article - despite the piece's attacks on the former mayor and his record.

Filed under: GOP debate • Hillary Clinton • Rudy Giuliani
soundoff (235 Responses)
  1. Anonymous

    Nancy, Dallas TX January 25, 2008 3:15 am ET

    I'm gonna get tickets to D.C. for Hillary's inauguration!

    Thanks, New York Times!

    NANCY, you are wasting your money on those tickets unless you buy them for the Romney inauguration.

    January 25, 2008 11:16 am at 11:16 am |
  2. New Yorker Showing Lack of Education

    New Yorker, You made your point; educated people are more likely to support Edwards or Obama. You are the best example seen so far.

    January 25, 2008 11:17 am at 11:17 am |
  3. DB

    Question? What ever happened to impartial media? This is kinda blatant. What if ABC endorses Hillary and then airs 100 hours of commercials for her, is that fair? Media should never, ever, ever, endorse anything, ever. How can you believe what they print.

    January 25, 2008 11:20 am at 11:20 am |
  4. True_Blue, I Agree With You


    I agree with you completely. I will not vote the Billary and Bubba Clinton show at any time.


    January 25, 2008 11:27 am at 11:27 am |
  5. Amused, Las Vegas

    Anyone who thinks the Times is always in Clinton's corner hasn't been reading Maureen Dowd.

    January 25, 2008 11:39 am at 11:39 am |
  6. Gina, Baltimore, Maryland

    Gee Wale Azeez, I guess we're the reason we suck now. Bummer.
    Hillary in 2008

    January 25, 2008 12:03 pm at 12:03 pm |
  7. Mike

    Mkay? People magazine endorsed Obama... and capris pants.

    January 25, 2008 12:06 pm at 12:06 pm |
  8. ernest

    This whole argument about Bill Clinton playing the race card puzzles me, the only thing i have seen him do is question Barack's record, since when questioning a politician on his record become race baiting, as a black man i think those saying that and Barack's camp sending links to say he is injecting race shows me that Barack is the one using race as an issue. Grow up, this is politics, i have seen worse and there will be worse if you become the nominee, > The reason you are losing the white vote Barac is because white people see you playing the race victim when there is no evidence of the Clintons using race and it turned them off , so defend your record but stop getting people to ask Bill Clinton to pipe down, they are doing what has done in politics forever, imagine that a campaign that does not distort their oponents records, and the media is eating it up Bill vs Obama, please , you cant talk experience and issues with Clinton so you have decided to make Clinton the issue , it wil not work cos Obama its showing everyone that u r a politician, Hillary wins and i will be glad for it.

    January 25, 2008 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm |
  9. Les Holcomb

    This type of endorsement for the Clintons is a shabby effort to affect South Carolina outcomes and other state primaries going forward. It isn't racism, but smells a bit like "white privilege" and "king or queen making".

    The Times has disappointed our family. It has marginalized itself now as a newspaper which we have admired, by acting like the Des Moines or New Hampshire papers did.

    In their second lives as businesses, Newspapers are in great financial distress. Like other corporations they must do what they must do to preserve themselves as, we the consumers turn to blogs like this to get and make sense of the news.

    This morning we voted by terminating our subscription after decades.We will now have two NYC newspaper to follow at the local library.

    Both Senators Clinton and Obama are remarkable and qualified Democratic candidates. Unfortunately in doing what they did the NYTimes indicates that Senator Clinton means "business as usual".

    January 25, 2008 12:50 pm at 12:50 pm |
  10. ??

    thanks for removing my comment concerning the endorsement of Hillary by the New York Times....I stated this would have been on your home page for days if it were Obama!!!!....MSNBC here I come???

    January 25, 2008 12:51 pm at 12:51 pm |
  11. maynard



    January 25, 2008 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  12. CJL

    Obama in 2008 represents a Giant Step in healing America at Home and Foreign, so I ask you to think with your heads and your Hearts, do what's better for yourself and your children, Vote Obama 2008 "Change"

    January 25, 2008 01:23 pm at 1:23 pm |
  13. Jim

    Whats the old saying about the New York Yankees? " The best team money can buy" Well I guess its just hard to break tradition now isn't it!

    January 25, 2008 01:24 pm at 1:24 pm |
  14. Nell Kidd

    To all of you people who say they will leave the country if a certain candidate gets the nomination, I have this to say "DON'T LET THE GATE HIT YOU IN THE RUMP ON YOUR WAY OUT" Piddypoo

    January 25, 2008 01:29 pm at 1:29 pm |
  15. Tee Darling

    Excellent choice on the Democrat side. I just cannot wait till this November to vote for Hillary Clinton and vote all the Republicans out of office. America is suffering and bleeding now because of the policies of this Bush administration. Bush and his republicans care about the top 1 percent rich people in this country. SHAME ON THE REPUBLICANS!!!

    January 25, 2008 01:30 pm at 1:30 pm |
  16. Latino_Moderate_In_DC

    Yes, Obama is a refreshing "new" face (nationally, at least) and very likeable. But having seen for years seen Hillary's work and commitment, and come to admire her despite the fire she's taken from many, she's the one who is both ready now and once elected to lead the way. Obama needs more than a bit experience on the domestic and foreign policy front – he'd be great down the road.
    Viva Hillary!

    January 25, 2008 01:31 pm at 1:31 pm |
  17. Lorna

    Well, that just put the Times in the same catagory as any supermarket rag, reaching out to the dummys that read it!

    January 25, 2008 01:33 pm at 1:33 pm |
  18. New York City

    NYT endorsed John Kerry in 04 and where did it get him?

    January 25, 2008 01:44 pm at 1:44 pm |
  19. sam

    If hillary goes for the white house that proves americans are all about name......... Clintons,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, hillary is just cashing her husband's name......................

    January 25, 2008 01:48 pm at 1:48 pm |
  20. mike

    Kerry's a loser.

    Go Hillary!

    January 25, 2008 01:49 pm at 1:49 pm |
  21. aisha


    January 25, 2008 01:49 pm at 1:49 pm |
  22. okplayer

    I admired Bill when he was a president. Even after the scandal – I stood by him. Seeing this campaign and the clinton political machine drag a potential great democratic leader to the sewer I just can't stomach to vote for the clintons.

    They are too power hungry and feel entitled to the white house and can't stand competition. A great democracy like we have shouldn't rely on two families to run the excecutive office. Over 20 years with Bush-Clinton-Cliton-Bush... enough already.

    I vow as a democrat that I will do whatever it takes to make sure the clintons never see the White House. If that means voting for a republican – so be it. I'm sick of slash-and burn politics. Time to take a stand.

    Edwards' 08

    January 25, 2008 02:00 pm at 2:00 pm |
  23. Yea Right

    How can anybody trust either a Clinton and mostly McCain, who is on both sides of ever issue. I saw him once on this show at some college, where before the commercial break he said he was for gay marriage and after the break when they came back he said that he meant that he was not for gay marriage, I was dumb -founded by this guy, what a fake!

    January 25, 2008 02:02 pm at 2:02 pm |
  24. Jake, California

    It is shameful for a woman to lie...shame on Hillary Clinton, she'll never be president of this country.

    In fact, electing her is just a continuation of male dominance because Bill will run the White House..not her!

    January 25, 2008 02:11 pm at 2:11 pm |
  25. mat

    It was pay back time for NYtimes. After all Hillary has done so many favors to another corporation-NYT. I would be surprised if NYT had NOT endorsed her!
    Hillary also did many favors to New York, she outsourced the jobs of upstate NY to India and put Americans out of work. She has promised to continue outsourcing.
    Supporting a women is different from supporting Clintons. Look at their record. Look how diverse their contributors are: Chinese political agents, Indian IT/outsourcing agents, Dubai corporates, and the list goes on and on. MANY CORPORATIONS AND LOBBYIES HAVE A LOT TO LOSE IF HILLAR LOOSES. Clintons want to build a dynasty that could start from 2009 and could continue well into 2025-Do the math yourself. It is nothing personal about Clintons that bothers people. It's their well entrenched intentions to build the CLINTON EMPIRE. To do that Clintons can go to any extent. UNFORTUNATELY THOSE WHO ARE SUPPORTING HILLARY ARE TOO NICE AND CLEAN HEARTED PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD HILLARY AND BILL CLINTONS LONG TERM PLANS.

    Let someone either Edward or Obama to take charge.

    January 25, 2008 02:13 pm at 2:13 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10