The Times whiffs on a choice

Talk about two-faced! 

In what it called a “break with convention,” the New York Times editorial board offered a kind-of BOGO — two Democratic presidential nominees for the price of one.

It was also a break with courage.

When you are called on to make a choice, you must to make a choice. You can’t pick both the Chiefs and the Niners to win the Super Bowl.

Quick sidelight: On his Saturday morning CNN show, Michael Smerconish polled his viewers as to whether newspapers should make editorial endorsements. There were more than 11,000 responses and broke right down the middle — 50/50.

Kind of like the Times long, labored copout. 

Newspapers write editorials to announce and support its world view, which is why they should endorse. At the same time it creates questions in many minds about the newspaper’s impartiality, which is why it shouldn’t endorse. 

Viewed in a certain light, the Times could be accused of ageism — Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are too old, Pete Buttigieg and Andrew Yang are too young/inexperienced — not to mention too male, or am I imagining that?

King Solomon, according to legend, ordered a baby cut in two, to share between two women who claimed to be the mother. The Old Gray Lady decided to cut the nomination in two on behalf of two not-so-gray women nominees — one “radical” (Elizabeth Warren), one “realist” (Amy Klobuchar). 

The Times said its history is one of siding with the more “traditional” candidate, which surprised me, but if that is the case, why the two-fer with nontraditional Warren? Why not select just Klobuchar? Is the Times trying to keep its street cred with the radical rabble? 

“If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now,” the Times wrote. So why toss a bouquet to the more traditional Klobuchar? And what about the other female candidate, Hawaiian Tulsi Gabbart? She must be wondering why she’s treated like poi (a traditional Hawaiian staple).

In dismissing surging socialist Sanders, the Times said it was rejecting “ideological rigidity” and overreach, such as “nationalizing health insurance or decriminalizing the border,”  which I thought the Times supported.

The Times believes in border enforcement? I thought only racists — according to Beto O’Rourke and Julian Castro — believe in border enforcement. Live  and learn, I guess.

While praising its two choices, the Times made an amazing Freudian slip when it referred to Warren as “a gifted storyteller.”

You mean as in an imagined Native American heritage? Or being forced when pregnant to leave a teaching job, when school board records show the opposite? Or denying having sent any of her children to private schools? 

The Times heaps praise on Klobuchar for her experience, common sense and bipartisan credentials.

I sense the editorial tilts toward Klobuchar. Or am I imagining that because I am a realist/traditionalist?