The New York Times recently endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain in their respective primary races.
The New York Times is one of the most -- if not the most -- Liberal newspapers in the country. There is no way they will pick John McCain in the general election in November. So why do they pick him at all?
One possibility is that they believe McCain will be the easiest to defeat in November. Despite his recent wins in primaries (and a possible blowout today, "Super Tuesday,") McCain lacks support from a huge number of Conservative Republicans. [Sidenote: the Conservative vote has been split between Mike Huckabee, who has zero chance of winning, and Mitt Romney, who is running a close second to McCain in most races. It's the "Perot effect," the one that won Bill Clinton the election in 1992.]
With feeble support from Conservatives, if McCain wins the Republican nomination, he will be destroyed in November. The crushing victory for the Democrat will give Liberals the "mandate" chant again.
The New York Times knows all of this. Their stated reason for supporting McCain is that he is the most Liberal of the Republican candidates. With McCain's abridgement of free speech (McCain-Feingold,) his support of amnesty for illegal aliens (McCain-Kennedy,) and his embracement of the "governemnt should handle manmade global warming" concept (McCain-Lieberman,) McCain has shown that he is not only willing to compromise, but eager to appeal to Liberal sentiments.
A New York Times endorsement sends a pretty clear message.