This issue tends to be more common than we thought.

I still think we should separate the works and the authors. Probably, the personality of the author is not good but his books are brilliant. — javi2541997

Yes. In principle, I think we should separate the work and the author. Or, the politician/producer/coach...and his sex life. Why shouldn't we let someone's personal life define their public life?

We buy the book to derive pleasure (or instruction). We are not buying the book as an endorsement of the author's private life (which is private after all. Most people want to be in public without some aspect of their private past being used to discredit an unrelated achievement.

Politicians, producers, professors, etc. are voted for (or not), funded, or hired on the basis of their ability to produce results. If the politician has a string of affairs, but is an effective politician delivering the results voters wanted, what is it to the voters that he was lecherous? John F. Kennedy was much more active sexually than the public was aware of. This is as it should be.

The NYT claims that 201 powerful men were bright down by #ME TOO. Powerful men, or powerful women, are powerful usually because they are productive and influential in their field, not because of their sex lives. James Levine was fired in 2018 after 40 years of conducting the NY Metropolitan Opera Orchestra (and the Boston Symphony and Munich Philharmonic) because of allegations of his having had sex with young (male) musicians. Some of the 'incidents' go back 50 years!

I can disapprove of the sexual relationships other people have without it determining how I rate their professional performance.

I think the point of the NYT's dual endorsement is

(a) the Democratic Party establishment - the DNC, Slick & Shillary, "O'Biden", Senator "Wall Street" Schumer + donors, etc (which also includes much of the NYT editorial board) - oppose Sanders again ... no surprise;

(b) to (demand? i.e. plant the flag) that the country vote (again) for a woman for president, which is especially timely with the tRUMP era ascendency of so many women politicians, anti-GOP/tRUMP mobilization of suburban woman, the master-class, political bravura of Speaker Pelosi, the #me too movement, and recent ratification of the ERA in Virginia;

(c) and to propose a "balanced" Northeast-Midwest ticket before the primaries (NB: I like the chances of Klobuchar & Warren coming out of the Iowa Caucus on top) that's strong enough, smart enough & ideologically broad enough to steamroll over tRUMP in the fall.

IMHO, not "incoherent" at all — 180 Proof

If this was the case it would make more sense for the NYT to exclusively endorse Klobachar, since she more or less encompasses (a) & (b), while (c) is superfluous given the Northeast will be voting blue en bloc. What's "incoherent" about endorsing two candidates at once is that voters can only vote for one, and only one candidate can win. But more to the point, how the NYT came to this decision isn't collectively calibrated to the extent that you're formulating. The process for making an endorsement was that the 15 members of the Editorial Board voted for their two top candidates and the top choice wins the endorsement. In this case, Warren received 8 votes and Klobuchar 7. (Booker, who dropped out after the voting was already conducted, came in 3rd with 6 votes, which just goes to show how these people might simply be clueless.)

Ultimately, Warren won, but despite that they decided to add Klobuchar to the endorsement and I think the more discernible explanation for this rather haphazard decision is best elucidated via James Bennet, the Editorial Page Editor and member of the Editorial Board, who stated in 2018:

I think we are pro-capitalism. The New York Times is in favor of capitalism because it has been the greatest engine of, it’s been the greatest anti-poverty program and engine of progress that we’ve seen.

Warren, tout court, is a bit too radical for the "pro-capitalism" liberal Grey Lady, and the addition of Klobochur was simply used to dilute the otherwise subversive selection while simultaneously being presented to the public under the facade of feminism. America's Paper of Record can't alarm Capital, and instead opted for banal Liberal Indecisiveness.

But also, who cares? Bernie, who has the strongest donor base and grassroots support received a single vote from the Editorial Board. What does that say about them? I'm much more interested in the fact that several young politicians (of color) who will take up the mantel of Left politics in America, such as Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar endorsed Bernie, as did Pramila Jayapal (et. al.) I'm much more interested that Labor Organizations such as National Nurses United (representing 150K nurses), or the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (representing 36K blue collar workers) and others, endorsed Bernie.

lol

From the Jan. 14, 2020 Democratic Party Presidential Debate:

So can a woman beat Donald Trump? Look at the men on this stage. Collectively they have lost 10 elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election they've been in are the women, [Sen.] Amy [Klobuchar] and me. — Sen. Elizabeth Warren

I think the point of the NYT's dual endorsement is

(a) the Democratic Party establishment - the DNC, Slick & Shillary, "O'Biden", Senator "Wall Street" Schumer + donors, etc (which also includes much of the NYT editorial board) - oppose Sanders again ... no surprise;

(b) to (demand? i.e. plant their flag) that the country vote (again) for a woman for president, which is especially timely with the tRUMP era ascendency of so many women politicians, anti-tRUMP/GOP mobilization of suburban women, the master-class political leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the #me too movement, and recent ratification of the ERA in Virginia;

(c) and to propose a "balanced" Northeast-Midwest ticket before the primaries (NB: I like the chances of Klobuchar & Warren coming out of the Iowa Caucus on top) that's strong enough, smart enough & ideologically broad enough in appeal to steamroll over tRUMP in the fall.

IMHO, not "incoherent" at all. :wink:

Btw, I'd prefer a Warren-Castro or even Klobuchar-Castro ticket to a Warren-Klobuchar (or Klobuchar-Warren) ticket ...