The New York Times editorial today proclaimed their undying support for Hillary Rodham Clinton while admitting that the best of the worst from the bunch of republicans was John McCain.

On the Democratic front, they were very complimentary towards Obama admitting that he stands similar to Hillary on most issues and has great talents. However, when it came to the republicans, the article took people who have some potential as leaders and dismissed them all by ignoring their achievements.

Reading the editorials, I was shocked at the ego of the Times and its editor. Who is the New York Times to proclaim who Americans should vote for? Don’t we all know the Times would never back a Republican? Let’s examine closely their dismissal of some possible worthy candidates.
Guilliani: “Vindictive, untrustworthy, racist, secretive, arrogant” who turned the tragedy of 9/11 into a business. Although Guillianin may not be ready to be commander-in-chief, dismissing his achievements as Mayor of NY is wrong. He improved NY a great deal while bringing down the crime rate drastically and responding well after 9/11 (he himself speaks about it enough so you all know….)

Romney: He has repositioned himself on too many issues.
Sure these are all things to be concerned about, but to me, the Times seems like the one with the arrogance. Their greatest claim for backing McCain is his support for Global Warming… I guess that does make him the best of the worst.

Related Posts:

McCain/Clinton Win Florida! Giuliani Supports McCain
Bill and Bush Senior Not So Chummy…
Is Hillary Clinton a Lesbian?
Janet Reno is the Father of Chelsea Clinton?
McCain and Clinton-Close Friends but How Close?