In Sunday’s edition of The New York Times, the paper's editorial board published their official endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president.
The editorial board changed its usual practice of comparing the candidates, since “this is not a normal election year”.
They explained why they couldn’t accurately compare the candidates in no uncertain terms: “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 authors said they wanted to persuade undecided voters, not just repeat what people who have already made up their minds want to hear.
Among the reasons to vote for Clinton, according to the editorial, are her tenacity throughout her career, her willingness to reach across the aisle, and her constant support of women and children. The piece also mentions her accomplishments as Secretary of State and the many personal and professional attacks she's whethered over the years. The editorial board makes sure to mention Clinton's shortcomings—her vote for the Iraq War, her "penchant" for secrecy and her emails, to name a few—but says she's received more than enough rebukes for all of those.
If you're wondering what the editorial board has to say about the other candidate, they've written another piece on why Trump should not be president. Read both full pieces here and here.
