Two governors in the Republican presidential field split the love from Boston’s two main newspapers in their endorsements for the Feb. 9 New Hampshire primary.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich is the pick of the Boston Globe, while its smaller competitor, the Boston Herald, picked New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
Christie had already secured the endorsement of New Hampshire’s biggest paper, the Union-Leader.
“The anger of American voters is genuine. We get that. But the antidote to incompetence in the White House is not more incompetence. Haven’t we learned the hard way that the Oval Office is no place for on-the-job training?” the Boston Herald editorial board said.
The paper called Christie “a smart and principled candidate with a real shot at uniting his party and broadening its appeal in November.”
“And there is just something about that Jersey guy attitude — feisty but not mean-spirited, tough but not hateful — that has a shot at taking an angry electorate and helping it find a focus and a purpose.”
Over at the Boston Globe, the editorial board was angling for the nice guy — “an experienced political figure with a record of results” who can deal “a blow to the divisive, demagogic candidates running on nativism and other political simplicities.”
Kasich’s “success in that important swing state” of Ohio “and his record as a moderate conservative who is willing to compromise in pursuit of results, suggests he is the Republican hopeful most likely to be successful on the national stage.”
“By voting for Kasich, New Hampshire can reward a candidate whose politics have been largely positive — and rebuke those candidates who have spent their campaign appealing to voters’ fears and biases,” the paper said, stressing that Donald Trump “bigotry is toxic — and it requires a resounding electoral defeat.”
“…Kasich, who is banking on a strong showing in New Hampshire to vault him into the top tier of candidates, has also been an important voice of sanity in this year’s field.”
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton won the Globe’s endorsement — because “this is Clinton’s time.”
“She is more seasoned, more grounded, and more forward-looking than in 2008, and has added four years as secretary of state to her already formidable resume. Democrats in the Granite State should not hesitate to choose her,” the paper said.
“…Sanders’s great contribution to this year’s primary debate has been his emphasis on income inequality, and on the outsize political influence of Wall Street and other corporations. His entry into the race has pushed Clinton to the left in ways that have made her positions inconsistent — she has come out against a Trans-Pacific Partnership that she helped to initiate as secretary of state. But Sanders’s candidacy has also opened up more room for Clinton to champion working people who are struggling in a changing economy.”
Join the conversation as a VIP Member