Thursday, October 27, 2016

Newspaper Endorsements

For Hillary Clinton:

Reno Gazette-Journal:

Eight members of the editorial board backed Clinton, two supported the Nevada ballot option “None of These Candidates,” and none supported Republican Donald Trump or Libertarian Gary Johnson. Four board members think Clinton will be a good, strong president. One “None” supporter vehemently opposes Trump and Clinton. And the other five board members primarily cast their votes against Trump.

If a stronger Republican candidate had been nominated, the board very well may have backed that person – and board members would have definitely had a better debate over whom to endorse. Unfortunately, Trump disqualified himself with his antics.

Our intention with endorsements is to determine – through interviews, research and vigorous debate with board members from across the political spectrum – which candidates and initiatives are most likely to help Reno, Sparks, Nevada and the nation. Overall, we think Clinton is far from a perfect candidate, but we also think she is more likely to make progress on addressing Americans’ concerns than the other ballot choices for president.

San Luis Obispo Tribune:

Only one candidate has the experience, the knowledge of domestic and foreign affairs and the temperament to be our next president. That person is Hillary Rodham Clinton, who we endorse today.

In doing so, we depart from our usual policy of not endorsing in presidential races. We’ve followed that practice for the past 20 years, in large part because we’ve believed the major party candidates met basic qualifications to hold the highest office in the land.

That is not the case in 2016. Donald Trump is singularly unfit to lead our nation, and for that reason, we join the vast majority of news outlets throughout the country in supporting Clinton.

We don’t expect to change the minds of the “never Trump” or “never Clinton” voters — many of whom have already sent in their ballots. We endorse Clinton because silence could be interpreted as a sign that we don’t care, or it doesn’t matter, or that both candidates are equally qualified — or unqualified. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Donald Trump lacks the experience, the basic knowledge of governance and the self-discipline to lead this great nation.


The Buffalo News:

Start with her strengths: Clinton understands government. In addition to having been first lady of the nation and before that, of Arkansas, she served ably as senator from New York, helping to ensure that federal money aided in the recovery from the 9/11 terror attacks and that rescue workers were cared for. She was a credible secretary of state who, despite her missteps, won the respect of world leaders.

She is a Democrat, but no reflexive ideologue. She seeks out other viewpoints and actually takes them into account. It is easy to forget that she won the respect of many Senate Republicans before their attention turned to opposing her presidential bid.

She is unafraid of bold action, evidenced by her support for President Obama’s decision to authorize the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. And, as even Trump observed, she perseveres. Clinton doesn’t quit.

Nothing demonstrates that better than this presidential campaign. When she lost the 2008 Democratic nomination to Barack Obama, she didn’t run away. She became secretary of state and, four years later, began preparing another run, overcoming unexpected challenges to stand now on the brink of the presidency.

That’s perseverance. It’s also the stamina Trump ludicrously claimed she lacked.

No endorsement:

Centralia Chronicle:

Several years ago, The Chronicle ceased a long established policy of endorsing candidates in each and every local race.

The decision was made that as a newspaper, our value to readers is the production and publication of meaningful information on every candidate without a declaration of support for a specific candidacy. Our editorial board’s stances had always been developed separately from the reporters who go out and gather the news, but the elimination of endorsements helped remove the question for those unfamiliar with standard newspaper operating protocol.

As you can see, it is a generic endorsement, not a "none of the above" editorial.

No comments: