Monday, September 26, 2016

Debate Day: Two Newspapers Endorse Hillary

The Cincinnati Enquirer has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, the first time in the paper's 100 year history that they have endorsed a Democrat:

“Presidential elections should be about who’s the best candidate, not who’s the least flawed. Unfortunately, that’s not the case this year.
Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, the most unpopular pair of presidential candidates in American history, both have troubled relationships with truth and transparency. Trump, despite all of his bluster about wanting to “make America great again,” has exploited and expanded our internal divisions. Clinton’s arrogance and unwillingness to admit wrongdoing have made her a divisive and distrusted figure as well.
The Enquirer has supported Republicans for president for almost a century – a tradition this editorial board doesn’t take lightly. But this is not a traditional race, and these are not traditional times. Our country needs calm, thoughtful leadership to deal with the challenges we face at home and abroad. We need a leader who will bring out the best in all Americans, not the worst.
That’s why there is only one choice when we elect a president in November: Hillary Clinton.”
Sure, it's not a rave, but it says something when a newspaper has never endorsed anyone but a Republican until now ...

And then, the New York Times followed suit and endorsed Hillary Clinton yesterday and then vowed to eviscerate Donald [t]Rump in the paper this morning:

"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. 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. (We 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.)
But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton supporters. We’re aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs. Clinton — because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent and a political system that seems broken. 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."
Enjoy the debates ... I see it going one of two ways:

Hillary gives [t]Rump the intellectual beatdown of his life or ...

It devolves into both candidate smack-talking the other.

I'm hoping for the former, but the latter would be fun, too.

5 comments:

the dogs' mother said...

If my medication allowed me to drink I'd watch it
with a large glass of wine!

Sadie J said...

Since I can't even listen to the Donald talk,(his voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me) I think I'll avoid it all and catch the highlights tomorrow!

Michael Dodd said...

Sadly, Sadie, I suspect all that the media will provide tomorrow will be the lowlights. That has been the way political coverage has devolved in this country. And the (t)Rump campaign eggs it on, knowing that keeping that name and face before the voting public seems to be the only thing that matters.

anne marie in philly said...

ain't gonna watch cause I am so damn sick o dis shit!

MMTampa said...

Any drinking game would destroy my liver - can't think of any other way of watching. . .