The New York Times is making news and breaking new ground by endorsing two disparate Democrat candidates for president, and many on the left are scratching their heads.

The far-left Elizabeth Warren and more moderate Amy Klobuchar were each awarded half a New York Times endorsement Sunday night.

The anti-Trump Times editorial board called their inability to decide between vastly different competing visions in the party “a break with convention.” Others are weighing in and calling the half-baked endorsements cowardly, sexist, and insulting.

Endorsing two people in a competitive primary with wildly different politics who share nothing more than a shared set of physical characteristics and socially constructed gender roles is sexist, and if you can’t see why that is then let’s have a chat. #nytimesendorsement #NYTimes — Sean Estelle? (@chitrans_plant) January 20, 2020

#nytimesendorsement Does the NYT understand that so blatantly pandering to women is insulting to women? — AnnAnne ? (@AnnAnne700) January 20, 2020

This is cowardly BS. Endorse one candidate. You’re hurting these candidates by splitting the endorsement. #nytimesendorsement #TheWeekly https://t.co/5A5j6Bs9qW — Fiber Optic (@accountable_gov) January 20, 2020

“On the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation,” the board’s editorial reads. “Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible. Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced.”

“Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration,” added the Times editors. “If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it. That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.”

Both candidates could potentially benefit. Warren’s support momentum from the radical progressive wing peaked months ago at about 27% and has since been waning. Klobuchar, seen as more centrist than most of the other Dem candidates, has never even reached a 4% polling support level, according to tracking by Real Clear Politics (RCP).

Perhaps the candidate most impacted will be Joe Biden who continues to lead the pack of candidates but who has not been able to reach average polling support numbers of 30% for several months now, according to RCP. His claim of being a safer, more traditional choice for Democrats could have gotten a boost with the backing of the New York Times.

“There will be those dissatisfied that this page is not throwing its weight behind a single candidate, favoring centrists or progressives,” the Times editorial board admitted, before essentially washing its hands of whatever direction the left’s voters choose, going forward. “But it’s a fight the party itself has been itching to have since Mrs. Clinton’s defeat in 2016, and one that should be played out in the public arena and in the privacy of the voting booth. That’s the very purpose of primaries, to test-market strategies and ideas that can galvanize and inspire the country.”

“Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren right now are the Democrats best equipped to lead that debate,” the paper added. “May the best woman win.”

Warren’s radical left positions are well-known and she is unable to shed the well-earned reputation of being untruthful. As for Klobuchar, it’s telling that she is being touted as a Dem centrist, yet she still embraces the Green New Deal, is pro-abortion, and has an “F” rating from the NRA for her stance on gun control, among holding several other far-left views.

So it doesn’t matter that she lied and said she was an Indian, that she was a person of color. The Times proves yet again why Gore Vidal called it the typhoid Mary of American journalism. #nytimesendorsement pic.twitter.com/UIZY3FvLZ9 — Erik Lewis (@ErikLew91126598) January 20, 2020