The New York Times’ editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton for president on Saturday.
“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,” the Times wrote.
The editorial board slammed Trump as a candidate who “discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway,” in contrast to Clinton, who the board cited as having “a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas.”
Calling Clinton “one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation,” the Times cited her positions on women’s rights, immigration reform, and foreign relations as examples of her experience.
“Americans born since 9/11 have had to grow up fast, and they deserve a grown-up president,” the board concluded. “A lifetime’s commitment to solving problems in the real world qualifies Hillary Clinton for this job.”
After NYT’s coverage of Clinton, this is almost a surprise. Almost.
Their coverage of Clinton over the years has been so wrong, based more on speculation and sexism rather than facts, but this is no surprise.
How could a legitimate newspaper with any credibility do otherwise?
I wonder why NYT didn’t wait to publish tomorrow, in its largest circulation edition?
Yes, and since the first President Clinton. I can still see in my mind, but not forgive, that NYT Magazine headlined “Saint Hillary”.