‘UNBIASED’ Washington Post Endorses Hillary Clinton

DO NOT claim to be unbiased after you endorse a candidate. Is this crazy of them? Or are they just forward and doing what MSM won’t?

The Washington Post added its name to the growing list of newspapers that have endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton, writing that the former secretary of state ‘has the potential to be an excellent president of the United States.’

Editorial board members added that ‘we are not making this endorsement simply because Ms. Clinton’s chief opponent is dreadful,’ to which they added, ‘Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is dreadful, that is true.’

They then laid out the case that Clinton is not the lesser of two evils, but could be an effective leader of an ‘angrily divided nation, working with legislators who in many cases are determined to thwart her, while her defeated opponent quite possibly will pretend her victory is fraudulent.’

They call her: ‘dogged, resilient, purposeful and smart,’ while labeling Trump ‘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,’ they write.

Throughout the editorial, which appeared in the print newspaper today, the Post’s writers are candid about their chosen candidate’s shortcomings, from her propensity to not disclose information to the public and the media, to the ‘unprecedented and unseemly’ way that she and her husband cashed in on the political speaking circuit.

‘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,’ they write.

But eloquence and charm, they argue, may not be what forces progress in the nation’s current sticky political situation, but rather ‘policy chops and persistence.’

The writers look toward Clinton’s resume and defend some of her choices. For instance, they argue, criticism of the administration’s ‘reset’ with Russia is ‘off-base,’ noting how Dmitry Medvedev was the president of the country at the time, not Vladimir Putin.

‘It was smart to test Mr. Medvedev’s willingness to cooperate, and in fact the United States and Russia made progress under Ms. Clinton’s leadership, including in nuclear-arms control and in facilitating resupply of U.S. troops in Afghanistan across Russian territory,’ they wrote.

Share Your Comments
Trending Now on GJWHG