The New York Times announced Saturday that it was endorsing Hillary Clinton and Ohio governor John Kasich for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations, respectively.
The Clinton announcement was not a huge shocker. The paper noted that it has endorsed her in every single campaign she's ever run, including in her 2008 fight against Barack Obama. Nevertheless, it pronounced itself an enthusiastic supporter in her current tussle with Bernie Sanders:
Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading Republican candidates offer — a vision in which middle-class Americans have a real shot at prosperity, women’s rights are enhanced, undocumented immigrants are given a chance at legitimacy, international alliances are nurtured and the country is kept safe.
It should be noted that there is thoroughly mixed evidence on what, if any, impact newspaper endorsements have on the outcome of a race. Still, Clinton, who is neck-and-neck with Sanders in polls for the upcoming Iowa caucuses, will no doubt welcome the thumbs-up from the Times.
Kasich, whose happiness at being endorsed by a major editorial board presumably outweighed the fact that the board in question is one of the most prominent symbols of the liberal establishment Republicans love to hate, tweeted his happiness at the news.
Still, the Times was hardly lavish in its praise of Kasich, saying that he was merely "the only plausible choice for Republicans tired of the extremism and inexperience on display in this race."