Hillary For President

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

The LA Times endorses Hillary.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/endor...426-story.html

Stick around Robbin.

So let's see. According to the LA Times, Clinton:

- has a penchant for secrecy (to put it as mildly as possible)
- has a self-defeating resistance to disclosure
- has a willingness to modify her positions to suit the popular mood
- doesn't appear to be open to compromise and willing to consider new facts
- has a less-restrained view of the use of military force than we are entirely comfortable (meaning that they're still bummed about the Iraq War)
- pressed for military action in Libya - a no no to the LA Times
- is running a campaign that might seem unexciting
- has an on-going FBI investigation that is, at least, "embarrassing"
- seems inauthentic (don't look behind the curtain).

In the article, the editorial chides Sander's "Medicare for all" plan as not realistic and a reason to support Hillary. Yet Hillary has now moved towards Sanders on this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us...tion.html?_r=0

The article faults Sanders for a financial reform proposal that would "...exact a punishment on companies at the heart of the last recession..." Yet Hillary has campaigned on "punishing" companies that won't repatriate foreign profits.

...yet the LA Times still sees fit to call this an "endorsement".

I think the LA Times has just lowered the bar on what constitutes an endorsement.