Split Decision: How the 'New York Times' almost didn't back Hillary

The New Republic: Split Decision
How the 'Times' almost didn't back Hillary
by Gabriel Sherman
February 28, 2008

On January 25, the New York Times endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton. At the time, the 1,100-word editorial stood out for both its tepidness and early appearance, coming near the front-end of the primary season. The piece ran in the paper the Friday before Super Tuesday, instead of in the Times's symbolically-important Sunday edition. Though the Times hailed Clinton, writing, "we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience," it also extolled the virtues of Barack Obama, noting "on the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two." The editors wrote: "By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama's appeal or his gifts."

According to Times sources, the paper almost didn't back Clinton. The divisions within the Gray Lady's editorial board mirrored the deep divide that has split Democrats in this tightly contested campaign. The 20-member board had initially leaned toward Obama, Times sources say. But in January, after the board had debated the endorsement in two separate sessions, Times chairman and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. decided to favor Clinton. Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, declining to comment on the internal debate, acknowledged that the vote was a difficult one. "It was a really hard one, no question about it," Rosenthal told me. "We talked about this within our board for hours. It was a very lively, interesting discussion. Several members of the board said it was the best discussion they've had."

As the primary season steams towards Ohio and Texas on March 4, some at the Times are now questioning the editorial board's judgment. "We're on the wrong side of history," one Times staffer said. Indeed, the Times stands apart from the majority of major American newspapers. Obama has racked up endorsements from more than 100 newspapers across the country, including the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times Company-owned Boston Globe, the Newark Star-Ledger, as well as the four biggest dailies in Texas and the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "The endorsement didn't win me any friends," Rosenthal admitted to me.

At the Times, Obama received a lukewarm reception when he first visited the paper's editorial board last spring, according to sources with knowledge of the meeting. Some staffers who attended the Q&A were disappointed with Obama's delivery and what some viewed as measured responses to thorny policy questions. Arthur Sulzberger didn't even attend. When Obama returned to the Times on November 28 for his second meeting with the paper's editorial board, held in a 13th floor conference room at the Times's new 8th Avenue skyscraper, his reception was much warmer....Clinton visited the Times on January 14 for her only meeting with the editorial board, after rescheduling her visit several times. Following Clinton's meeting, the editorial board debated the endorsement in two heated sessions, before Sulzberger tipped the scales in her favor. Some have noted that one source of Sulzberger's support for Clinton might be his close friendship with Steve Rattner, the former Times reporter-turned-private equity financier who is a prominent Clinton donor (and Sulzberger's gym buddy). Through a spokesperson, Sulzberger said, "Our endorsements represent the best thinking of the editorial board and we do not comment on them beyond what we say to our readers."...

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=982aca0c-2761-4747-a255-a58b953760cc

so close and some think they're on the wrong side of history. NYT could get on the right side of history at any time..just jump in. Start reporting on facts and no more drumbeats for poliical wars that kill real people.

They should know her much better than they do Obama. Tough to go against a popular hometown Senator who has done nothing important wrong. I include her Iraq war vote in that assessment. Remember Judy Miller and the Times early support for the invasion. They published a pained mea culpa when it became obvious that the occupation was a colossal blunder. They shared Senator Clinton's pain.