Note: This post has been edited for length
It will probably come as no surprise to many, but the New York Times is endorsing Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
Here are some excerpts and notes on the endorsement.
For the full text, please click here.
The endorsement starts as follows:
For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.
The Times notes that Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party and points to her service as senator and secretary of state and to her experience as first lady “with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton.”
On Clinton’s main opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, the Times notes his formidableness as an opponent and the fact that he “brought income inequality and the lingering pain of the middle class to center stage and pushed Mrs. Clinton a bit more to the left than she might have gone on economic issues.” It adds that Sanders has “surfaced important foreign policy questions, including the need for greater restraint in the use of military force.”
However, the Times says:
In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.
On gun control, the Times notes that Clinton is “a strong advocate of sensible and effective measures to combat the plague of firearms” while “Sander’s record on guns is relatively weak.”
The Times finds that Clinton’s economic proposals for financial reform “reflect a deep understanding of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform act, including the ways in which it has fallen short” and adds, “She supports changes that the country badly needs, like controls on high-frequency trading and stronger curbs on bank speculation in derivatives.”
The Times finds one of the most attractive parts of Mrs. Clinton’s economic platform to be her pledge to support the well-being and rights of working Americans: “Her lifelong fight for women bolsters her credibility in this area, since so many of the problems with labor law hit women the hardest, including those involving child care, paid sick leave, unstable schedules and low wages for tipped workers.”
Additionally, on women:
Mrs. Clinton is keenly aware of the wage gap for women, especially for women of color. It’s not just that she’s done her homework — Mrs. Clinton has done her homework on pretty much any subject you’d care to name. Her knowledge comes from a commitment to issues like reproductive rights that is decades old. She was well ahead of Mr. Sanders in calling for repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which severely limits federal money to pay for abortions for poor women.
On foreign policy, the Times applauds Clinton’s position on tougher sanctions on Iran which helped bring about the Iran nuclear deal and how Clinton fostered closer cooperation with Asian countries and expanded and deepened the dialogue with China. It recalls how, as first lady, Clinton rebuked China for its treatment of women and “criticized the Beijing government’s record on human rights even as she worked to improve relations.”
On the use of military power:
Mrs. Clinton can be more hawkish on the use of military power than Mr. Obama, as shown by her current call for a no-fly zone in Syria and her earlier support for arming and training Syrian rebels. We are not convinced that a no-fly zone is the right approach in Syria, but we have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton would use American military power effectively and with infinitely more care and wisdom than any of the leading Republican contenders.
Finally:
Mrs. Clinton has honed a steeliness that will serve her well in negotiating with a difficult Congress on critically important issues like climate change. It will also help her weather what are certain to be more attacks from Republicans and, should she win the White House, the possibility of the same ideological opposition and personal animus that President Obama has endured. Some of the campaign attacks are outrageous, like Donald Trump’s efforts to bring up Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity. Some, like those about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server, are legitimate and deserve forthright answers.
The Times concludes:
Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading Republican candidates offer — a vision in which middle-class Americans have a real shot at prosperity, women’s rights are enhanced, undocumented immigrants are given a chance at legitimacy, international alliances are nurtured and the country is kept safe.
Lead photo: www.shutterstock.com
