- Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
The New York Times editorial board delivered a hearty endorsement of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Saturday, while calling Donald Trump the “worst nominee” put forward by a major party in American history.
The Times’ board said it is trying to persuade voters who might be on the fence about voting for Clinton, rather than “merely affirming the choice of Clinton supporters.”
“The next president will take office with bigoted, tribalist movements and their leaders on the march,” read the editorial. “Over 40 years in public life, Hillary Clinton has studied these forces and weighed responses to these problems.”
The Times stressed that 2016 isn’t a “normal” election year, and that it’s an empty exercise to compare Clinton to Trump, the Republican nominee.
The editorial continued:
“[O]ur 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 praised Clinton’s character and discussed her numerous accomplishments throughout her “continuous” public service, including establishing a fund for health monitoring of 9/11 first responders as a New York senator, as well as leading efforts to renew diplomatic relations with Myanmar when she served as secretary of state.
The Times also praised Clinton’s ability to “reach across the aisle,” despite her “political scars.”
“The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Trump,” reads the editorial. “The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to rise to them.”
The Times promised to explain in another editorial why Trump is the “worst nominee” put forward by a major party in modern American history.