In a decision of seeming absurdity, the New York Times endorsed Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for President of the United States.

Or is that presidents. Obviously the jokes write themselves.

But this is less an endorsement than an unendorsement. What the endorsement really says is that the NYT isn't supporting Biden or Bernie. Instead it offers up Warren as a Bernie alternative and Klobuchar as a Biden alternative. Considering Klobuchar's electoral promise, that's effectively a Warren endorsement.

And while the jokes do write themselves. The Times isn't joking. And its agenda, the traditional one of the Left, isn't funny. Read on.

Nearly any of them would be the most progressive president in decades on issues like health care, the economy and government’s allocations of resources. Where they differ most significantly is not the what but the how, in whether they believe the country’s institutions and norms are up to the challenge of the moment... Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. 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.

What the New York Times is really endorsing is using both approaches to try to take over the country. It's whatever works.

If fooling the normies with Klobuchar and feigned moderation is effective, let's go there. If we're going to shoot for socialism now, we'll go with Warren. The goal is to explore both the carrot and the stick, the MLK and the Malcolm X approaches to getting in the door.

This isn't about candidates. It's about tactics. The candidates are just fronts and brands for a particular set of tactics.

And this is the fundamental approach of the Left. It's the one that it has always pursued in its plot against America.