DC: The New York Times endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president Saturday reads almost entirely as a list of excuses for the candidate’s past mistakes, failings and perceived lack of character.
“Running down the other guy won’t suffice to make that argument,” the editorial board writes in a self-described effort to persuade voters she is a good candidate on her own merits. “The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Trump.”
Yet on issues spanning Clinton’s entire career as first lady, senator, secretary of state and presidential candidate, the editorial board consistently explains away some kind of glaring issue in order to make a positive point about her. All of these issues — from her vote in favor of the Iraq war, to her use of a private email server, to the perception she’s not trustworthy — are lumped together as “occasional missteps,” which the board argues make it difficult for Clinton to “reveal” her true record.
Here’s a sampling of the editorial board’s maneuvering on her behalf.
The issue: A “shift” on immigration
Clinton opposed driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants in the 2008 campaign, but is now calling for blanket amnesty and a dramatic increase in legal immigration. Some would see that “shift” as “opportunistic,” the editorial board admits. “But we credit her for arriving at the right position.”
NY Times Whines. Proof positive again that Main Stream Media are in the Cankles bag of tricks. Ho hum…………….BORING!
Who but ardent democrats give credence to a ny times endorsement?
Only because the NYeT will replace union workers in their press rooms and bindrys will non union workers that will work 16+ hours a day. That’s how they roll.
Have you read any of Hellery and Timmeh’s book reviews on Amazon? I’m surprised anyone will vote for those two failures.
“Hillary’s not a TOTAL liar!”
“Hillary’s not a COMPLETE psycho!”
“Hillary’s not a CONVICTED felon…(yet).”
Wow. Color me *convinced*.