The LA Times has endorsed Hillary over Bernie. It is the largest newspaper in California, and it also has a massive online readership and presence.
“Clinton would be the first woman elected president of the United States. But the real reason to support her is that she is the Democratic candidate most likely to get the job done.”
Yet even though he has proved a far more formidable challenger than we — or Clinton — expected, 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.
That’s been the rub on Bernie from many of us on the left. his “solutions” for pointed out problems are too simplistic and don’t have a chance of passing, let alone if people were to find out the true scope of the costs involved it would peel off many voters on the left, jeopardizing a very winnable election against a toxic opponent.
By contrast, Clinton, for all her faults — and they range from 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 — is vastly better prepared than Sanders for the presidency. She has The Times’ endorsement in the June 7 California Democratic primary.
Well, not really agreeing with some stuff here. Her “modifications” are more or less organic, and others have done the same and even more, including Bernie on some things. (Trump today is the exact opposite of who he was 4 years ago in almost every way, politically speaking). Still, liking that they see Hillary as VASTLY better prepared than Bernie for the presidency.
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. These qualities are reassuring in juxtaposition to a primary opponent who does not offer, at the end of the day, a serious alternative and, and a likely opponent in the general election who is unprepared, unsuited for the job and dangerous.
Unmatched indeed.
Compared to the intoxicating altruism of the Sanders’ campaign, Clinton’s candidacy might seem unexciting. But nominating a candidate for president is, or ought to be, serious business. As Obama himself likely would admit after almost eight years in the White House, there is more to being president than grand promises, whether they are about “hope and change” or a political revolution. We admire Bernie Sanders’ passion for progress and equality, but our endorsement goes to the candidate who is more likely to translate ideals into action.