The New York Times Editorial Board chose two women to endorse on Sunday, Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.
The board’s unconventional decision to back two different candidates is meant to address two different models, one “realist” and one “radical,” adding that both movements warrant serious consideration and should be left to the public arena to debate and ultimately to the voters to determine.
It adds: “Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren right now are the Democrats best equipped to lead that debate. May the best woman win.”
The editorial board believes Ms. Warren is the strongest candidate from the progressive wing, citing her committment and experience, and a “serious approach” to policy making.
“Carrying out a progressive agenda through new laws will also be very hard for any Democratic president,” the board writes. “In her interview with the editorial board, she demonstrated her sophisticated understanding of the different levers of power in an administration.”
Still, the board worries that her path to the nomination is “challenging,” questions her political instincts and suggests that the country needs a “more unifying path” than her message blaming American business for a wide array of societal problems.
The editorial board states that Ms. Klobuchar may be the answer to enacting progressive policies as a successful, experienced lawmaker with the ability to unify the party. They praised her plans on climate change, housing policy, infrastructure, health care, and childhood poverty.
“Her vision goes beyond the incremental,” they write. “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.”
Yet the board questions her management ability, citing reports that she has mistreated some staff members in the past, and her ability to deliver a polished political message.
The board was critical of two male front-runners, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.
The editorial board found fault with both men. Mr. Sanders’s policy prescriptions are described as “overly rigid, untested and divisive.” In an observation likely to anger his supporters, the board compared the Vermont senator to Mr. Trump at one point.
“Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another,” it writes.
Mr. Biden, meanwhile, is described as preferring “merely restoring the status quo,” with an agenda “that tinkers at the edges” and will not sufficiently advance the country, in the board’s view.
“What’s more, Mr. Biden is 77,” the board adds. “It is time for him to pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders.”
Their view of Mayor Pete Buttegieg was supportive of a bright political future, while Mike Bloomberg declined an interview with the board, citing his lack of positions on enough issues.