re: #227 wheat-dogghazi-mailgate

The New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton, which is not too surprising since the Times has traditionally favored Democrats.

Rather than compare Clinton to Trump, the editorial board reviewed Clinton’s substantial accomplishments as a public servant, while dismissing as largely irrelevant her few faults. Of Trump, the editorial says little, except for this nice little dig in the closing paragraph. The Big Yam will probably have some snappy snippy comeback on Twitter soon.

nytimes.com

yeah - this:

In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate—our choice, Hillary Clinton—has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)

i’m waiting for part 2