What the Editorial Board Really Thought of the Democratic Candidates

Klobuchar- another Mondale and another loss.

Huge thanks for the editorial board for opening up this process. Something that I believe has not been highlighted, not on The Weekly, not in the endorsement editorial, and not here in this piece but I believe is critically important - and close to disqualifying - was Biden’s declaration that he would carry states in the middle of the country “in a walk.” I heard that watching the Weekly and my heart fell to the bedrock of the ground upon which I sat. Donald Trump will be a formidable political opponent and any candidate for the Democratic nomination who does not believe that to their core and emphasize this challenge emphatically is sleepwalking to defeat. To be clear, I’m not a Biden supporter (Warren 46 all the way!), but to hear the national front runner express such hubris was equivalent to thousands of canaries in a coal mine.

I am disappointed, in the Times Editorial Board, for not asking about foreign policy, especially about what the right direction is for America in the mideast. Domestic policies are important to understand. But with Trump abandoning the Kurds and handing Syria over to Russia and then killing Soleimani, we need to know what each candidate thinks the right plan is for America for our continued intervention in the region. They need to justify the massive budgets for the military, and to clearly define how they would act as Commander in Chief to protect American interests worldwide. They need to articulate how America would view NATO and a revival of the Iranian nuclear deal, and how they would finally and forever defeat ISIS. They need to describe how they would repair the damage with Iranian relations that Trump's confront and contain strategy has caused. They need to define how to end the cyberwar we're currently in with Russia, and to get them to stop actions like this against our country. In general, they need to say how they would reestablish normalcy and stability in our foreign relations. There are many more national security issues they need to address, but I didn't hear anything about them in the Times' interviews. Neither Warren nor Klobuchar is qualified to be CiC, and that needed to be highlighted. The Times needs someone more experienced in these issues on your Board before you go into your next round of candidate questioning.

what I really think of your endorsement is that it is driven by trendy hipsterism. it doesn't really do credit to the two women who seem to have been chosen because they are women. my suspicion is strengtheNed when you chose not kne, but two women. double virtue signaling

"BA: I think there are several plausible candidates in this field, each with strengths and flaws. We made a choice..." Um, no, you didn't. That's the problem. Choosing 2 is just lame.

Just want you to consider a front page article of all the democratic candidates still in the race for the nomination sans the front runners. Still angry that the first question and answer you did at the very beginning did not include Biden. Like Bloomberg in this one. Biden did not chose to be included and you let teacher’s pet get away with it. I suppose I could figure out what Duval Patrick is doing in this race if I read his interview but my time is better spent with Megan and Harry.

In their process of “vetting” the candidates, why didn’t the editorial board ask Amy Klobuchar about her lack of black voter support shown in the polls, or mention this in their evaluation of her as a candidate?

Thanks for this. The selection of letters on the subject from readers published yesterday was superb as well. The letter supporting Elizabeth Warren most closely expressed my views. Nice to read positive remarks here about Warren by AK, who seemed to have extra helpings of journalistic skepticism towards Warren in the segments of the interview shown in the TV program. Her write-up of the endorsement seemed to lean towards Klobuchar. Someone, forget who (AK?), pointed out that Warren can come across as condescending and didactic. Very true. Big liability. Same quality (perception of it, anyway) hurt Hillary, I think. Obama too, though not fatally. It's a real problem these days, with tons of people drunk on faux feelings of persecution by those they perceive to be 'elitist' know-it-alls. Most people, I think, admire brains, if they're not put forward condescendingly and if they're paired with genuine empathy, real respect for us non-brainiacs, and readiness to admit flaws and laugh at oneself. One significance of the endorsement is its rejection of the notion that a woman can't win. Bravo. Completely agree! Make the election, at least in part, a referendum on sexism with Donald Trump representing the male privilege position. See what happens.

I was impressed by one answer: "Yes," with no elaboration. Which just goes to show, the questions might have been better framed.

When I think about Yang's proposal for universal basic income, I am reminded of my experience serving in the military in some overseas positions. Our government sets reimbursement levels for support for housing throughout the world rising higher in areas with higher costs. I noticed when this COLA rose where I served, the rents charged by foreign landlords rose in exactly the same measure. I expect the same thing to occur here if UBI were implemented. Funny thing, that.

Not one response on the dubious decision to endorse two candidates? Hedging is so Wall St.

Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar are both capable politicians, but I still think the type of political revolution that Bernie Sanders is representative of is what this country needs now more than ever. I have no doubt in my mind and I will be voting for Bernie sanders in the Democratic primaries.

One thing that the members of the Editorial Board (and a lot of other people in the journalism and related fields) need to realize--and their surprise at Andrew Yang's thoughfulness gives considerable evidence of this--is that there really are a LOT of smart, compassionate people out there, with a lot of good ideas, and not all of them, or even most of them, contemplate running for public office, given the craziness and lack of ability to live a life that entails. Yang is one of those people who few would know of if he hadn't decided to throw his hat in the ring, but if he hadn't, it wouldn't diminish his thoughtfulness any. The same can be said for any number of thinkers who are not nationally, or sometimes even locally, known, but whose analyses and viewpoints are as sophisticated and worthy of deliberation as any that come from think tanks, universities, corporate conferences, or legislative houses. (I daresay some even are found in Times' commentary boxes.) It's just that for a lot of such people the need to disseminate these ideas far and wide, and be famous doing so, doesn't necessarily become an overriding obsession; they have lives and families and careers in other areas that take up their time. (A lot of them are also rightly rather suspicious of the social media echo chamber.) But, even if they never achieve pundit status, their ideas are certainly worth a discussion by those who DO wander in those circles.

I like Amy Klobuchar. I was glad to see her endorsed by the your paper. So I am surprised and perplexed why she was not mentioned once in this article. This gives me pause as to the Times’s process. Did she not make a notable impression and if not, why endorse her? But endorsed she was so why not provide readers with nuanced impressions we gained from the other candidates, running or not? I feel a flaw and I am hoping it’s not on her part.

My wife and I continue to puzzle over the point of the "who [or what] broke your heart" question. What did you hope to achieve? What about ability to lead and govern would be revealed by a good answer? Or a poor answer. One of the board indicated something about answering the question the interviewee wants to answer. Which, of course, begs the question. We saw this question as pointless at best, and especially intrusive. We were impressed, despite this, at the choice of candidates to endorse, and the reasoning in the endorsement editorial. And by the way, choosing two candidates makes sense both because it is primary and caucus season, and because of the size of the field seeking nomination. That question still puzzles, all the same.

I was disappointed that the editors did not ask about what the candidates thought was needed to update the constitution to address the shortcomings that this president and his toadies in Congress have made so blazingly apparent. Ethics. Voters rights (and suppression) and the right to fair representation as opposed to gerrymandering. The capricious changing of congressional procedural rules to allow partisan priorities over the national good. The legal challenges to laws enacted to correct these ills will be continuous. The hard battles to enact amendments are the only way to settle the matters. These battles may fail but they present our best hope to an ongoing seesaw for partisan advantage

The lead-in mentioned endorsing two candidates, which was obviously controversial. However, you completely ignored that. Why not try to explain it, especially when you implied that that's what this issue was going to be about?

Here's what a reader thinks: Your palpable, obvious bias against me. Sanders s is showing, again. And again. And again

Will the NYT release the full videos of the interviews? I think making the full 90-minute long-form interview videos available to the public would be a public service. As a reader, I certainly appreciated the well-annotated full transcripts, but videos show something that transcripts can't convey.

Not surprising about Deval Patrick. He spoke at my graduation and was it was a story about his life that meandered and went exactly nowhere. The man has nothing interesting to say. No surprise either that his biggest accomplishment in life was making a lot of money.

And is Sanders still claiming he’s not a Democrat through all of this?

I appreciated the interviews & read much of them with interest. But I was frustrated that no one asked the candidates to address the elephant in the room: that the country has elected a president who the vast majority of us, including many of the president’s vociferous supporters in the GOP leadership, know to be a complete fraud, turning politics into another one of a long series of get rich/get attention schemes. I would like to know what the candidates think about how we got here, who is to blame, and how they might offer hope for a more functional democracy.

I was disappointed in most of the Editorial Board members' responses. They did not reflect the thoughtful consideration the Board expected of the candidates. I feel enough people now hate and fear Trump that any Democrat, including both Sanders and Warren, will beat him in a landslide. I'm an 81 year-old liberal Democrat from New Hampshire, who had to listen to Seabright Cooley (excuse me--Styles Bridges) speak at my UNH graduation.