JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC

The New York Times significantly ratcheted up the prospects of a woman being elected president this year when it endorsed on Sunday U.S. senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for the Democratic nomination.

Even though the two women’s politics are at odds — with Warren being on the progressive end and Klobuchar being in the moderate wing — The Times’ made a logical case for why either could be successful…

“There are legitimate questions about whether our democratic system is fundamentally broken. Our elections are getting less free and fair, Congress and the courts are increasingly partisan, foreign nations are flooding society with misinformation, a deluge of money flows through our politics. And the economic mobility that made the American dream possible is vanishing.

“Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it.

“That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.”

(Note: The endorsement came out online Sunday. In today’s, Monday’s, print edition, the endorsement editorial consumes both the editorial page and the Op-Ed page.)

Don’t underestimate the significance of this endorsement. With the power and influence of major metropolitan papers greatly diminished and that of the three most prestigious national papers (NYT, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal) correspondingly strengthened, millions of Democrats will take note and at least give closer looks to Warren and Klobuchar.

The Times’ editorial board has spent the last couple of weeks interviewing all the Democratic candidates, and in an excellent public service, The Times recorded the interviews and posted them online.

The Times wasted no time in following up the interviews with its endorsement. The caucus/primary season gets underway two weeks from today, with the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses.

The paper acknowledged that its endorsement would probably surprise many people, but, again, it was careful to explain its digression from past approaches…

“The history of the editorial board would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward, within the realities of a constitutional framework and a multiparty country. But the events of the past few years have shaken the confidence of even the most committed institutionalists. We are not veering away from the values we espouse, but we are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird those values.”

I’m not sure what all institutions the editorial was referring to, but it could be interpreted as taking a shot at the Democratic Party machinery for going along with the “comfortable” candidate in 2016, Hillary Clinton, when Sen. Bernie Sanders was generating much more excitement and captivating millions with his anti-establishment rhetoric and bold agenda.

**

The Times was careful to explain why it passed over Sanders and each of the other leading Democratic contenders:

Sanders is too uncompromising: “He promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda. Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.”

Pete Buttigieg is too green: “He shows tremendous promise, though he has never won more than 11,000 votes in any election. His showing in the lead-up to the primaries predicts a bright political future; we look forward to him working his way up.”

Andrew Yang is similarly unprepared: “He points to new solutions to 21st-century challenges rather than retrofitting old ideas. Yet he has virtually no experience in government. We hope he decides to get involved in New York politics.”

Michael Bloomberg is trying to buy the nomination: “Rather than build support through his ideas and experience, Mr. Bloomberg has spent at least $217 million to date to circumvent the hard, uncomfortable work of actual campaigning.”

Joe Biden is too old and not bold enough: “But merely restoring the status quo will not get America where it needs to go as a society. What’s more, Mr. Biden is 77. It is time for him to pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders.”

**

And why, more specifically, did The Times chose Warren and Klobuchar?

Klobuchar is down to earth and pragmatic:

“Amy Klobuchar has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic center. Her vision goes beyond the incremental. Given the polarization in Washington and beyond, the best chance to enact many progressive plans could be under a Klobuchar administration.

“The senator from Minnesota is the very definition of Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness. Her lengthy tenure in the Senate and bipartisan credentials would make her a deal maker (a real one) and uniter for the wings of the party — and perhaps the nation.”

Warren is authentic and inspirational:

“Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller. She speaks elegantly of how the economic system is rigged against all but the wealthiest Americans, and of ‘our chance to rewrite the rules of power in our country,’ as she put it in a speech last month. In her hands, that story has the passion of a convert, a longtime Republican from Oklahoma and a middle-class family, whose work studying economic realities left her increasingly worried about the future of the country. The word ‘rigged’ feels less bombastic than rooted in an informed assessment of what the nation needs to do to reassert its historic ideals like fairness, generosity and equality.”

**

Let the primary season get underway, then, and, as The Times said in closing its editorial, “May the best woman win.”