The primary is supposed to be a contest of ideas rather than a coronation or "Just beat Trump," and the @nytimes editorial reflects that. That’s a lot more important to me than whether or not they selected one person. How about we engage it on that level? nyti.ms/2G7RM4i
That said: I do disagree with the overall framing of Klobuchar as the “realist” candidate. Radicalism can be pragmatic. To me, it’s about who is comfortable proposing more change to the status quo than the other, and who is putting forth the strongest candidacy in each regard.
Klobuchar’s record, particularly as a prosecutor, is also not fairly assessed in this endorsement. That being said, these kinds of things—like any good opinion writing—are meant to inspire debate. Not about the choice, per se, but the candidates. I see folks missing the cue.
I see the editorial as taking advantage of a year in which any candidate would be preferable to the incumbent. We know who they’ll endorse in the general: whomever Democrats nominate. Now is the time to engage readers on the divergent approaches to policy in the party’s primary.
Sadly, I anticipate that we’ll see many more printed takes in the coming days debating @nytimes’s choice to make two endorsements rather than engaging with the arguments that they make. In that respect, the idea may backfire. But is that their failure, or ours? I don’t know.
Would @CoryBooker have earned the Times endorsement in Klobuchar’s place had he been able to stay in the presidential race? I’d have liked to find out. This is just one moment from his meeting with the editorial board, but it just makes me wonder.
