The New York Times, to the surprise of absolutely nobody with a pulse, endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.  Here’s the full story.

It’s no surprise that the Times editors think America would be better off with Hillary. Check out the link below to their previous presidential endorsements. You have to go all the way back to 1956 and Dwight Eisenhower to find a Republican that the Times deemed worthy of the White House. That’s right: the Times editors, in their infinite wisdom, seriously believed that what America needed down through the decades was Presidents McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and, of course, a second term of Jimmy Carter instead of that crazy cowboy actor, Ronald Reagan. Read through their rationales for endorsing each one, and imagine the words being pontificated at you in the condescending, know-it-all tones of Professor Kingsfield from “The Paper Chase.”

I particularly love the excerpt from their reasoning for reelecting Bill Clinton in 1996: “The presidency he once dreamed of is still within his reach if he brings the requisite integrity to the next four years.” Yes, let’s give the Clintons four more years and see if they develop any integrity. And how did that work out? Is “integrity” the word you associate with the second Clinton term? The Times now yearns for yet another term of the Clintons in the White House. Over the ensuing 16 years, have Bill and Hillary demonstrated any growth in the area of integrity, or have their more recent exploits managed to make their lies and scandals of the ‘90s look like a kid cheating on a spelling test in comparison?

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 1-1 of 1

  • Jeana Bormann

    09/30/2016 12:53 PM

    The New York Times should NOT be endorsing any candidate. It is an entity and not a person, and therefore has no vote to cast. This is the epitome of what is wrong with the media today. Instead of reporting facts, the media reports opinions.