New York Times' Presidential Endorsement: 'This Is Not a Normal Election Year'

NEW YORK CITY — Surprising few if any readers, the New York Times' editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton in this Sunday's paper for President of the United States. But instead of discussing the candidates' pros and cons side-by-side, as is tradition, it published a second editorial in Monday's paper arguing that Donald Trump is unsuitable for the office for a plethora of reasons.

"This is not a normal election year," it writes. "We believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history."

The reason for splitting up its endorsement into two pieces is clear in the editorial on Clinton: The editorial board wants to emphasize that there is a positive case to be made for the candidate who would be the nation's first female president, rather than just a case against the man who could be the first reality-TV-star-in-chief. Apparently, the board feared criticism of Trump would have overwhelmed any single editorial.

"The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Trump," it wrote.

"Our endorsement is rooted in respect for her intellect, experience, toughness and courage over a career of almost continuous public service, often as the first or only woman in the arena."

To bolster the case, the board cites her experience closely observing the previous three presidents; her international successes rallying support for sanctions against Iran and proclaiming women's rights to be human rights in China; her record supporting women and families throughout her career, particularly the Children's Health Insurance Program; her history of working with those across the aisle; and her positive policy proposals for higher education, criminal justice reform and climate change.

"Mrs. Clinton has shown herself to be a realist who believes America cannot simply withdraw behind oceans and walls," the board writes, "but must engage confidently in the world to protect its interests and be true to its values, which include helping others escape poverty and oppression."

Her weaknesses are also on display, including her "lamentable penchant for secrecy," her vote on the Iraq war and, of course, the email scandal.

But the last of these, for which the Times' own reporting has come under criticism, the board says "looks like a matter for the help desk."

Taking on the case against Trump, the board argues that many of the common claims offered in support of his candidacy are mistaken. He is not the straight-talker, financial wizard or expert negotiator he claims to be. And while he may be a change-maker, it's far from clear he'll change the country for the better, the editorial argues.

Among many concerns, the board emphasizes Trump's lack of experience, apparent friendliness with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the fraud cases at Trump University, failed casinos, undisclosed finances, potential conflicts of interest, unclear but boastful foreign policy and "anti-immigrant, nativist and racist signals."

But in addition to these criticisms, the Times also finds fault with his more standard Republican leanings: tax cuts for the wealthy, opposition to climate change policy and preference for deregulation of the financial sector.

Ahead of the presidential debates Monday night, do editorial board endorsements matter?

It's unlikely many supporters of Trump will be swayed by the Times' denunciation to vote for Clinton. But it's possible these sorts of tracts will help motivate Clinton supporters to get out and vote, or make wary Trump voters skip the long voting lines. Perhaps more unexpected endorsements, like the historically Republican-leaning Cincinnati Enquirer's support for the Democratic nominee, will make more of a difference.

Photo credit: Ali Shaker/VOA