I’ve just finished reading the New York Times endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

They basically buy into the “experience” meme, and I think that they also don’t see any “there” there for Obama.

Their reasons for not endorsing Edwards, are pretty mainstream, basically the alibis rich and comfortable people use because so they don’t care about his issues.

I would disagree with them on “changing the tone of the campaign”.

Honestly, since Obama has taken a more combative turn, I have been more impressed with him as a candidate, if just because it shows some facility for dealing with the Republican Slime Machine.

If you want a good read though, I would suggest that you read the Times endorsement of McCain.

It’s not that they say such lofty things about McCain, but rather the degree to which they go after the Rudolph Giuliani clown show:

Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?

That man is not running for president.

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. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

Meow!!!!