Though most of the attitudes regarding the 2016 election are one of, “We’re f*cked either way,” The Washington Post editorial board believes otherwise.
On Thursday morning, WaPo officially endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton for president and argued she is more than the lesser of two evils.
‘In the gloom and ugliness of this political season, one encouraging truth is often overlooked: There is a well-qualified, well-prepared candidate on the ballot.
‘Hillary Clinton has the potential to be an excellent president of the United States, and we endorse her without hesitation.’
However, WaPo did acknowledge Clinton’s weaknesses and faults and that she is not well liked by American voters.
‘We recognize that many Americans distrust and dislike Ms. Clinton. The negative feelings reflect in part the bitter partisanship of the nation’s politics today; in part the dishonest attacks she has been subjected to for decades; and in part her genuine flaws, missteps, and weaknesses.
‘We are not blind to those. Ms. Clinton is inclined to circle the wagons and withhold information, from the closed meetings of her health-care panel in 1993 to the Whitewater affair, from the ostensibly personal emails she destroyed on her own say-so after leaving the State Department to her reluctance to disclose her pneumonia last month. Further, she and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, are not the first to cash in on the speech circuit, but they have done so on an unprecedented and unseemly scale. And no one will accuse Ms. Clinton of an excess of charisma: She has neither the eloquence of President Obama nor the folksy charm of former president George W. Bush or, for that matter, her husband.’
Ouch. Though correct, WaPo looks at her weakness, the lack of charisma, differently and proposes it is an actual strength.
‘If progress is possible, it will be incremental and achieved with input from members of both parties. Eloquence and charm may matter less than policy chops and persistence.’
They also noted her failures may have actually served as lessons that will prepare her for a successful presidency, noting her failure as first lady with the attempted overhaul of the health care system and her “reset” with Russia. They also noted she should have argued more for support for Libya after Gaddafi was removed from power.
Though they wrote they desired more ambitious goals, they noted “most of her agenda is commendable,” and some may actually be achievable.
They further addressed the problems with her lack of transparency.
‘The biggest worry about a Clinton presidency, in our view, is in the sphere where she does not seem to have learned the right lessons, namely openness and accountability. Her use of a private email server as secretary was a mistake, not a high crime; but her slow, grudging explanations of it worsened the damage and insulted the voters. Her long periods of self-insulation from press questioning during the campaign do not bode well.’
They went on to compare Clinton to her Republican opponent, alleged unregistered sex offender Donald Trump.
‘Mr. Trump, by contrast, has shown himself to be bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy, and enamored of America’s enemies. As president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world.’
WaPo wrapped it up by restating their belief that a Clinton win and Clinton presidency is best for the future of America.
‘We believe that Ms. Clinton will prove a worthy example to girls who celebrate the election of America’s first female president. We believe, too, that anyone who votes for her will be able to look back, four years from now, with pride in that decision.’
Featured image via Getty Images/Ethan Miller.