Wednesday, January 22, 2020

The New York Times Editorial Board Chooses Candidates

It truth it was a marketing campaign. No more and no less. The New York Times pretended to be weighing in on the Democratic presidential nominating process. It ran endless videos of editorial board members asking deep and probing questions of the Democratic candidates. They were sitting in an architecturally significant board room. The Times filmed the process with high production values.

Images of board members fill the screen, making them appear larger, more consequential, more serious. Naturally, they are diverse and supposedly deep thinkers. The profundity is so thick you can cut it. They look serious; their questions are edited to make them sound serious, which is better than looking like Trump hating bigots. 

And yet, when push came to an endorsement, the editorial board whiffed. They chose Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, thus making it look as though they could not make up their minds. It made them look like buffoons. It also made them look as though they were afraid to offend one or the other Democratic Party factions.

In truth, both Warren and Klobuchar have something in common. They lack gravitas, they lack seriousness, they do not command respect. And neither will ever command respect on the world stage. Yet, an editorial board that went all in for Hillary Clinton, pronouncing her the most qualified candidate forever, can hardly be expected to do any better this time.

In the matter of commanding respect, I point out that Elizabeth Warren opened her campaign by thrusting the neck of a beer bottle into her mouth. What would Freud say about that?

As though that would make her one of the guys. A congenital liar, a woman who gamed the diversity system to benefit herself, a woman who hectors people, who talks at them, who talks down to them can hardly be expected to present American greatness on the world stage. Warren is scrawny and weak. She looks like she needs a good meal. She will never inspire respect. She has a schoolmarmish tone. When she speaks you imagine that she would be most comfortable opening her orations by saying: Now, class….

Can you imagine Elizabeth Warren as commander in chief? Does she have a commanding presence?

We can say the same about Amy Klobuchar, a no-account senator from Minnesota. No one cares about her. No one can recall any accomplishment. Apparently, she is incapable of managing her senate staff, and is given to rants and screaming. And she thinks that this qualifies her to be commander in chief or chief executive. Better yet, she has been known to eat salad with a comb.

Apparently, the deep thinkers at the New York Times editorial board did not consider her ability to command respect, to stand tall and proud for America in international settings. They apparently do not consider these qualities important.

Klobuchar resembles a dour, dumpy Hausfrau, without any real substance and without any real achievements on her record. 

The New York Times editorial board wanted to show off how serious and how intelligent it is. It ended up looking like a diverse bunch of buffoons. It’s only standard seems to have been, the possession of XX chromosomes.


Sam L. said...

"She looks like she needs a good mean."????? Man, perhaps?

As for the NYT, well, I despise, detest, and distrust the NYT (the WaPoo, too).

"Yet, they all pale when compared to the worthless incompetent fraud know(N) as Hillary Clinton."

How about Golda Meir as an exemplar?

Peter B said...

Also to promote the falsehood that Klobuchar is a "moderate" and therefore her views are "moderate." Obama, of course, is now "conservative."

UbuMaccabee said...

They make a nice lesbian couple. Need a red Jeep and a Subaru.