Hillary Clinton may well benefit from the #NeverTrump movement. But the New York Times wants voters to know that the Democratic presidential candidate isn’t just the better alternative to her bombastic, divisive opponent—she’s a worthy nominee in her own right.
The newspaper endorsed Clinton for US president on Saturday (Sept. 24). The editorial, which will run in print on Sunday, aims specifically to persuade Americans who are on the fence about casting their vote for Clinton—whether because of who she’s married to, because she’s a Democrat, or because they perceive her as offering no change from the current political establishment.
Clinton has demonstrated ”a lifetime’s commitment to solving problems in the real world” and is best suited for the White House, according to the editorial. “Running down the other guy won’t suffice to make that argument,” it adds. “The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Trump.”
While it was no surprise that the newspaper endorsed Clinton, the editorial board took the unusual step of noting that it’s impossible to take its traditional approach to evaluating the two candidates’ views and plans.
“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,” said the editorial.
Any attempt to compare the two would be an ”empty exercise,” the newspaper says. Clinton has a long record of public service to demonstrate her abilities, according the newspaper. But Trump, a political outsider, consistently fails to offer concrete proposals “while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway.”
For those who enjoy the Times’ endorsement, a sequel is forthcoming. The editorial board said that it will ”explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.”
Clinton and Trump face off in their first presidential debate on Monday (Sept. 26).