Friday, May 13, 2016

The Los Angeles Times Endorses Hillary Clinton!

When it comes to newspaper endorsements over the course of this epic Democratic primary, one candidate is the runaway, not-even-remotely-close champ. And today, she got yet another...this time from biggest paper in California and one of the most-distributed in the entire country.

The Los Angeles Times has convincingly endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, and this particular section cuts to the chase:
As all the world knows, Clinton would be the first woman elected president of the United States. That would be a joyous, long-awaited, landmark moment in American history after centuries of discrimination and second-class status for half the population. But the real reason to support her is that she is the Democratic candidate most likely to get the job done. 
Compared to the intoxicating altruism of the Sanders’ campaign, Clinton’s candidacy might seem unexciting. But nominating a candidate for president is, or ought to be, serious business. As Obama himself likely would admit after almost eight years in the White House, there is more to being president than grand promises, whether they are about “hope and change” or a political revolution. We admire Bernie Sanders’ passion for progress and equality, but our endorsement goes to the candidate who is more likely to translate ideals into action.
The Times goes into further detail about why Sanders did not win their endorsement, and their criticisms are familiar and (in my opinion) hard to argue with:
Yet even though he has proved a far more formidable challenger than we — or Clinton — expected, Sanders lacks the experience and broad understanding of domestic and (especially) foreign policy that the former secretary of state would bring to the presidency. Although Sanders has tapped into very real and widespread anxieties about economic inequality, deindustrialization and stagnant economic growth, his prescriptions are too often simplistic, more costly than he would have us believe and unlikely to come to pass. 
The Vermont senator has made the race more substantive and has forced his opponent to address issues that might otherwise have gone undiscussed, but in the end he has offered little reason to believe that he would be able to enlist recalcitrant Republicans in Congress in accomplishing his priorities. Rather, he told the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, he would say to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell: “Hey, Mitch, look out the window. There’s a million young people out there now. And they’re following politics in a way they didn’t before. If you want to vote against this legislation, go for it. But you and some of your friends will not have your seats next election.” If only it were that simple.
In contrast to the unreservedly glowing endorsement Clinton from Rolling Stone (still my favorite of 2016), there are plenty of annoying "buts" to be found here. Still, they make clear that her positives far outweigh their other concerns in the end:
Clinton may seem inauthentic to some or to lack that drink-a-beer-with-me quality that voters often look for in a candidate. But she has a grasp of the complexities of government and policy that is unmatched by any of the other candidates who ran for president this year — or by most candidates in most years. She is sober and thoughtful, in possession not just of the facts she needs to make her arguments but of a depth of experience that undergirds her decisions. These qualities are reassuring in juxtaposition to a primary opponent who does not offer, at the end of the day, a serious alternative and, and a likely opponent in the general election who is unprepared, unsuited for the job and dangerous.

From her early days as a children’s rights advocate to her role as an activist first lady in pressing for healthcare reform to her public service in the Senate and as secretary of State, Clinton has demonstrated a steely persistence and a keen intellect. She and Sanders agree on many broad goals, including expanding healthcare, regulating the financial sector and reducing America’s reliance on fossil fuels. But where Sanders offers audacious, utopian solutions, Clinton adopts a more incremental approach that has a better chance of success during a time of divided government and political dysfunction when negotiation and compromise will be more important than ever.
Hillary doesn't exactly need an assist in California, as she'll likely win there and cross the nomination finish line that evening no matter what, but this endorsement from one of the most influential papers in the country is a valuable boost nonetheless.

Listen to a portion of Clinton's conversation with the Times editorial board below.

2 comments:

  1. This is where she can't be denied, she is not only far and away the most qualified, she can answer any question with extra wonk points, she knows the world power structure, she knows the players and what they care about, she knows the problems we are facing, near and long term, she has the big picture. And domestically she has so much more than vision.

    Hillary, I have never once overestimated her, she never fails.

    ReplyDelete
  2. SHE will be failing in many domains BUT.....not in the one of keeping BIG CORPORATIONS HAPPY..............In THAT, she shall surely not fail. When it comes to the Farmers of America and the People of America: YES, she will KNOWINGLY FAIL !!!! And, I don't mind signing my name: Anne Albright Moreau de Bonrepos

    ReplyDelete