Lo más curioso es que, aunque aseguran que Kerry se ha revelado como 'algo más que una alternativa', dedican todo el cuerpo del editorial a atacar, una vez más, todos los errores del presidente Bush en lugar de a desgranar las virtudes de Kerry. Eso lo dejan, y pasando por encima, para el final del editorial:
Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a willingness - sorely missing in Washington these days - to reach across the aisle. We are relieved that he is a strong defender of civil rights, that he would remove unnecessary restrictions on stem cell research and that he understands the concept of separation of church and state. We appreciate his sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of the people who currently do without.
Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency. He is a longtime advocate of deficit reduction. In the Senate, he worked with John McCain in restoring relations between the United States and Vietnam, and led investigations of the way the international financial system has been gamed to permit the laundering of drug and terror money. He has always understood that America's appropriate role in world affairs is as leader of a willing community of nations, not in my-way-or-the-highway domination.
We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.
Voting for president is a leap of faith. A candidate can explain his positions in minute detail and wind up governing with a hostile Congress that refuses to let him deliver. A disaster can upend the best-laid plans. All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope, examining what the candidates have done in the past, their apparent priorities and their general character. It's on those three grounds that we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president.
Y me pregunto yo: ¿por qué no explican mejor lo que ha hecho Kerry en el pasado, sus prioridades y sus virtudes? De acuerdo que consideren en el NYT que la presidencia de Bush ha sido desastrosa, pero atacarle una vez más no parece lo mejor.
En fin, se podría haber hecho bastante mejor.