A Curious Reason for a New York Times Endorsement

The New York Times released its endorsement for Governor of New York and there is little that distinguishes the two Democrats running for Governor in the editorial until the Times states its reason for why it was supporting Eliot Spitzer over Tom Suozzi:

The attorney general is running for governor with a national prestige and statewide popularity that could give him extraordinary power to impose change on the backward and recalcitrant State Legislature. Mario Cuomo and George Pataki both came into office with the intention of being a reformer in some important way, but neither man arrived with the independent political strength that Mr. Spitzer could bring to the job.


Spitzer is more well-known and thus should be Governor? Are there not other reasons the Times could have come up with than that? How does this promote debate and challengers if the message to lesser known candidates is "don't bother"?

Spitzer may have more political capital at this point, but there is the chance he could fall to the same "three men in a room" deals, especially given the support he has from the Democratic machine, which has been salivating at the chance to take the State Senate.

Suozzi would be able to continue his Fix Albany campaign and threaten to run candidates against entrenched politicians if they don't straighten up and fly right. Being Governor would only add more resources to that cause.

And curiously enough, the article reads almost like an endorsement for Suozzi until it mentions that it backs Spitzer due to his popularity. The article even mentions how Suozzi has influenced Spitzer:

By forcing Mr. Spitzer to defend his record and to elaborate on crucial issues like taxes and health care, Mr. Suozzi succeeded in making the attorney general an even more compelling candidate. With regard for Mr. Suozzi, we nevertheless endorse Mr. Spitzer in the Democratic primary on Sept. 12.


So instead of backing someone that is responding to the campaign of Tom Suozzi, why not back the original?

The Times may have more reasons to support Spitzer, but its published reasoning is very flawed and encourages the stifling of challengers and of public discourse.

Edit at 12:30 PM: Larry Littlefield further explores this "endorsement" (even though it spends most of its time praising Tom Suozzi) on Room Eight.