Bet you didn't see that one coming: The New York Times handed its 2006 Senate endorsement to the incumbent, Hillary Clinton.

The endorsement is notable for two reasons: one, the unleavened scorn heaped on republican candidate whatshisname, and for the emphasis on the fact that the editorial board really, really would like to see her in the Senate for a full six years.

First, on the other guy:

Hillary Clinton is running in a phantom race for the Senate, pitted against an unknown, unqualified opponent. In the unlikely event that New Yorkers ever learn what John Spencer’s views are, most would find them far too conservative. It’s a measure of the haplessness of Mr. Spencer’s campaign that the Republican nominee has been dogged by rumors that his real aim is to prepare the ground for an attempt to regain his old job as mayor of Yonkers.

It would be easy to endorse Hillary Clinton for a second term even if she had a far more credible opponent.

Ouch! Next, on 2008:

She has won the genuine respect of most of her colleagues in Washington, and she seems to have found a forum in which her lifelong wonkishness can be put to good use. It seems as if in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton has found her true calling. [...]

But can she conjure up a vision of the future for a nation desperately in need of inspiration and real leadership? Can she speak to the great issues of the day directly, without carefully trimming every sentence to steer clear of controversy? [...]

We are waiting for a profile-in-courage moment, a sign that she is something more than a very competent politician. Meanwhile, we endorse Hillary Clinton for another six years in the Senate.

We have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since 1989, leaving aside for a moment questions of legitimacy. It's safe to say that the nation is weary of brand Bush at this point. The Times seems to be indicating that they're not willing to necessarily extend the Clinton dynastic franchise, either.