The LA Times announced today that it endorses Hillary Clinton for president.
It is no surprise the LA Times has decided to endorse Clinton. After all, her rival Bernie Sanders is an agent of change, and Clinton is nothing if not an establishment candidate. The major California newspaper and largest metropolitan newspaper in the U.S. used to be one of the best checks and balances against corporate and political misadventures, but in 2000 the LA Times became a member of the establishment.
“…evolved to embrace virtually every aspect of modern media. Tribune Media … owns 42 TV stations in about 30 markets, cable network WGN America, and a stake in the Food Network…a number of online media properties, Tribune Studios, Tribune Digital Ventures, WGN-Radio, and a significant number of iconic real estate properties and strategic investments.”
The LA Times gave its readers a look into why they chose Clinton over her primary rival Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders. Both Democratic candidates have fought long and hard, with Sanders claiming California as his “big enchilada.” So, the LA Times endorsement hits him hard.
Naturally, The Times says Clinton is “on the verge of victory” for California’s June 7th primary. How better to pull the voters into her corner. Fortunately, not all voters are that naïve. Those who dislike change prefer the comfort of the status quo. The Times says:
“These qualities are reassuring in juxtaposition to a primary opponent [Sanders] who does not offer, at the end of the day, a serious alternative and a likely opponent in the general election who is unprepared, unsuited for the job and dangerous.”
The Times endorsement piece also says:
“Sanders lacks the experience and broad understanding of domestic and (especially) foreign policy that the former secretary of state would bring to the presidency. Although Sanders has tapped into very real and widespread anxieties about economic inequality, deindustrialization and stagnant economic growth, his prescriptions are too often simplistic, more costly than he would have us believe and unlikely to come to pass.”
The Times offers Sanders a few condescending and well-gnawed bones:
“The Vermont senator has made the race more substantive and has forced his opponent to address issues that might otherwise have gone undiscussed, but in the end he has offered little reason to believe that he would be able to enlist recalcitrant Republicans in Congress in accomplishing his priorities.
Rather, he told the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, he would say to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell: ‘Hey, Mitch, look out the window. There’s a million young people out there now. And they’re following politics in a way they didn’t before. If you want to vote against this legislation, go for it. But you and some of your friends will not have your seats next election.’ If only it were that simple.”
The Times titters about Sanders’ passion, his concept of a “rigged economy,” and his call for a “political revolution.” Yet, when it comes to Clinton, The Times glosses over her faults:
“…a penchant for secrecy to a willingness to modify her positions to suit the popular mood to a less-restrained view of the use of military force than we are entirely comfortable with.
Clinton may seem inauthentic to some or to lack that drink-a-beer-with-me quality that voters often look for in a candidate.”
The Times describes Clinton as:
“…vastly better prepared than Sanders for the presidency. She has The Times’ endorsement in the June 7 California Democratic primary.
But she has a grasp of the complexities of government and policy that is unmatched by any of the other candidates who ran for president this year — or by most candidates in most years. She is sober and thoughtful, in possession not just of the facts she needs to make her arguments but of a depth of experience that undergirds her decisions.”
It is sad when what used to be the best opponent on behalf of the people against corporations and politics goes corporate.