New York Times editorial board endorses Clinton for president
The New York Times’ editorial board on Saturday endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for president calling comparing her to rival Donald Trump “an empty exercise.”
“In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year,” the paper wrote. “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 editorial — which will appear in print on Sunday, the day before the first presidential debate — emphasizes national security and cites Clinton’s experience as secretary of state in saying she is better qualified to shape US foreign policy than her GOP challenger.
“Through war and recession, Americans born since 9/11 have had to grow up fast, and they deserve a grown-up president. A lifetime’s commitment to solving problems in the real world qualifies Hillary Clinton for this job, and the country should put her to work,” the paper concludes.
The editorial states its goal is to persuade readers who might be “on the fence,” encouraging individuals that Clinton is significantly prepared to lead the country into economic prosperity, international affairs and technological advancements.
“Over 40 years in public life, Hillary Clinton has studied these forces and weighed responses to these problems,” the Times wrote. “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 editorial spent little ink explaining why Trump would be a poorer choice to lead America, writing, “Running down the other guy won’t suffice to make that argument. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Trump. The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to rise to them.”
The Times argued that the email controversy that has dogged Clinton’s candidacy was of small consequence in determining a future president’s qualifications.
“That decision deserved scrutiny, and it’s had it. Now, considered alongside the real challenges that will occupy the next president, that email server, which has consumed so much of this campaign, looks like a matter for the help desk.”
The Times also backed Clinton during the Democratic primary fight.
By Sophie Tatum and Eugene Scott