The New York Times published a resounding endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Saturday — in the hope that it will persuade readers who are reluctant to cast a vote for another Clinton.
The paper’s editorial board explained that in any normal election year, it would compare the candidates on the issues side by side, but that it would be a fruitless endeavor this time around.
“A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway,” the board wrote.
The Times did not mince words in denouncing real estate mogul-turned-Republican-presidential-candidate Donald Trump as “the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.” But the paper also said the best case to be made for Clinton isn’t that she’s not Trump — it’s that she has the ability to meet the many challenges the U.S. faces
President Obama’s successor, the paper points out, will take office as tribalist movements pick up steam throughout the world, and various issues — from terrorism to the pressures of globalization — test democratic values and ideals of tolerance.
“Over 40 years in public life, Hillary Clinton has studied these forces and weighed responses to these problems,” the paper said. “Our endorsement is rooted in respect for her intellect, experience, toughness and courage over a career of almost continuous public service, often as the first or only woman in the arena.”
According to the editorial, Clinton’s career in public life — from first lady to secretary of state — reveals a determined leader who has fought to create opportunities for struggling Americans and to ensure that the nation remains a force for good in the world. But, the board continued, her record is defined by incremental successes rather than transformational change, and her occasional missteps, coupled with frequent attacks, have led to misperceptions about her character.
“She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship,” the board wrote.
The Times has a fairly consistent record of supporting Democratic presidential candidates. The paper has not endorsed a Republican for the Oval Office since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956