NYTimes Endorses Clinton, McCain

Anyone with the ability to read should have seen these endorsements coming. The Times editorial staff has not kept its preferences a secret.

For Hillary Clinton:

Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of resume. 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.

Frankly, I couldn't disagree more. Mrs. Clinton is nothing more than a seat-filler marionette whose ration coupons are still valid. Unlike Maureen Dowd, I don't believe a Hillary presidency will be a two-for-one deal. There will always only be one.

For John McCain:

Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.

Being conservative, I, of course, disagree but, Wow! What's not to like? Liberal on global warming, torture outrage, campaign finance and immigration amnesty, McCain has a better record as a Democrat than Hillary Clinton. Also, let's not forget his opposition to tax cuts and, my personal sticking point, the Gang of 14.

In summary, move along. There's nothing to see here.