The influential New York Times announced in an editorial Friday morning its "primary choices" in the presidential race: Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain. The paper dismissed Democrat hopeful John Edwards as a populist, stating "We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards's fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy â€¦ [he] has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we're not sure where he stands." Obama, on the other hand, was a promising and talented candidate, the paper stated, but "his amorphous promise of a new governing majority" led the editors to choose Clinton because they were not sure whether Obama had experience enough to "restore America's global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm." The paper's editors were also "hugely impressed by the depth of [Clinton's] knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth â€¦ of her experience." They were also certain that "she would be a strong commander in chief." While stating outright "We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president," the Times nevertheless said the "choice to be made .. is an easy one." McCain "has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle" and "[is a] genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief." The paper then slammed practically every other Republican candidate, being especially harsh on Giuliani, which was described as a "narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square."