Comments: TNR
I always liked TNR for both its positions and tone, but they really lost it with that one.
The Leiberman endorcement was nothing but a big tantrum. Two years ago they were sure that 911 would start an era of Hawkish liberalism. Two weeks ago they were sure that the Democratic party was marching off a cliff of Phish parking lot leftism. The gulf between the two was too huge and they went crazy.
I am sure they are kicking each other hard, and they sorta deserve it. They might well end up doing to the center just what the Nader voters did to the left...
Posted by Jon at January 25, 2004 08:42 PM
The run-up to Iowa proved exactly what endorsements are worth. Did all the endorsements that Dean collected help him? Hell, no. I suppose I can understand Al Gore's impatience to have one candidate going after Bush. But who ever said Al Gore's political instincts were razor-sharp? If they were, he'd be president today. The lack of press focus on Edwards is going to work to his advantage Tuesday the same as it did last week. All we're hearing about is Kerry, Dean and Clark. I will not be surprised to see Edwards beat Clark. If he beats Dean, watch out. Any idea of what it's looking like for Edwards in Missouri? That could be a real key race.
Posted by Paul at January 25, 2004 10:35 PM
Does anyone else think TNR is kicking itself having endorsed Lieberman before the Iowa surge of Edwards and Kerry.
Marty Peretz thinks foreign policy (specificially the "war on terror") is the most important issue, and Lieberman's taken positions that Peretz likes. Also, Lieberman is consistent in this area and actually appears to believe what he's saying from week to week, something that can't be said of his competitors.
Why should/would TNR regret the endorsement? The magazine picked the guy it agrees with.
Posted by Michael at January 25, 2004 10:55 PM
Yeah but the whole point of their "primary" was to pick a winner. Edwards did best in their primary, but since they thought Edwards was a goner they went with the goner they liked better. That's my point. They didn't even endorse the candidate that won their own endorsement sweepstakes because they stuck to the CW and wrote off everyone but Dean and Clark.
Posted by Chris at January 26, 2004 01:48 AM
From my recollection of the Lieberman endorsement, which I didn't read quite as closely as the Edwards runner-up piece, it didn't seem to be nearly as glowing.
I actually was shocked that they didn't endorse Edwards, given his strong, consistent showing in the TNR Primary, and I felt that there were larger forces at work governing the endorsement choice.
Maybe they "like" Lieberman better, but for the life of me, I don't know why.
Posted by Steve at January 26, 2004 03:09 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)