For the 15th time in a row, the New York Times is endorsing a Democrat for president of the United States, a predictable pick it acknowledges would be "an empty exercise" if it simply gave credence to Clinton supporters. Instead, it takes aim at those balking at voting for Clinton—those reluctant to vote for an establishment candidate, an establishment Clinton, or an establishment Democrat in an era of "an establishment that seems indifferent and a political system that seems broken"—and makes the case for Clinton on her merits, because, as the editorial board writes, "the best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Trump." The board sees a candidate "defined more by incremental successes than by moments of transformational change," who "has evinced a lamentable penchant for secrecy and made a poor decision to rely on a private email server," and is perplexingly inept at laying out "the full pattern of her record."
Still, the Times argues, Clinton's record is there and she "is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship." Her dozen years as senator and secretary of state showcase "a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration," and "a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington." She's "a realist who believes America cannot simply withdraw behind oceans and walls," and seeks the Oval Office at a time when we "are living in a world darkened" by terrorist threats. Concludes the Times, "Through war and recession, Americans born since 9/11 have had to grow up fast, and they deserve a grown-up president." The full piece is here.