I usually ignore the ramblings of left wing news outlets, meaning most of them, who will obviously back virtually all, if not all, of the Democrats running for office. Since the WP began endorsing for President back in 1976, they have never endorsed a Republican. And almost never endorsed any Republican. And, of course, they failed to break with tradition in endorsing Hillary. Now the Editorial Board tells us humorously
We have written a lot in recent months about why Mr. Trump is manifestly unqualified — by experience, temperament and outlook — for the Oval Office. We agree that attention paid to his unfitness is to Ms. Clinton’s benefit. But we also believe that fair examination of Ms. Clinton in her own right provides convincing evidence that she is well prepared and fully capable to succeed as president of the United States.
So, what’s that evidence?
Not only has Ms. Clinton sketched out a thoughtful and ambitious policy agenda but she has run an impressive campaign, including her choice of running mate and her nimble mastery of three debates.
So, she ran a good campaign? That’s evidence?
We are not alone in our recommendation. Most newspapers — including conservative newspapers that never before supported a Democrat for president — have endorsed Ms. Clinton, as have publications that broke decades-long traditions of not choosing sides. She has been backed by an impressive number of officials, former officials and experts from both sides of the aisle, including cabinet secretaries, retired military and Nobel Prize winners. Tellingly, people who worked most closely with her are most enthusiastic. “Prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument,” was the testimonial offered by Michael J. Morell, 33-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency, who has served presidents of both parties and never publicly backed a presidential candidate before. “I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room.”
So, some people back her? That’s evidence?
It is hard to imagine that any other politician subjected to decades of unrelenting conspiracy-mongering, unprecedented scrutiny and outright misogyny would fare as well as she has. Some of the emails from her staff stolen by Russia and released show thoughtless comments and embarrassing political calculations by her staff, but many others reveal a woman with discipline and resilience who thinks thoughtfully about the important issues of the day and pushes for pragmatic solutions. Those are the qualities we hope will result in her being elected president on Nov. 8.
So, because people were mean to her (imagine people being mean in politics. It’s unheard of!!!!) and she stood there, that’s evidence?
What’s missing is “accomplishments”. What has she done in her 30+ years in politics? Is there any substance? She passed no substantive legislation that originated from herself. Things weren’t going particularly well while she was Secretary of State.
How about when she was in the private sector decades ago. Is there anything there? No.
How does any of this make her “amply qualified?”
So, other than squishy things, what evidence is there? In the WPEB piece endorsing Hillary, they mentioned more missteps than accomplishments. This was the same argument made about Obama. Demeanor and campaigning abilities. That hasn’t turned out too well for the country.
Would Trump be better? Who knows? And therein lies a problem with Trump. But, we know how bad Hillary will be.