Washington – The New York Times’s editorial board endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John Kasich as they seek to become their parties’ nominees in the U.S. presidential election, calling Clinton one of the most “deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.”
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Clinton, a front-runner facing a strong challenge from Senator Bernie Sanders, and Kasich, who has only dimly registered in the polls, received the endorsements from one of the nation’s largest newspapers two days before voters in Iowa hold the first nominating contest for the Nov. 8 election.
“Mr Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs Clinton offers,” the board wrote, after praising him for making important points about economic inequality and foreign policy.
The board praised Clinton’s term as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, and said she had shown a lifelong commitment to American workers, particularly women. The board criticized her as too quick to propose using military force abroad, but said she still would be a better military leader than her Republican rivals.
The Times editorial board previously endorsed Clinton in 2008, when she ran against Barack Obama. In that endorsement, it also argued that Clinton had more experience and had presented more detailed policy ideas than her rival.
Kasich, the governor of Ohio, was the only candidate in the crowded Republican field the board said it was able to stomach.
“Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, though a distinct underdog, is the only plausible choice for Republicans tired of the extremism and inexperience on display in this race,” the board wrote.
It said Kasich had “been capable of compromise and believes in the ability of government to improve lives.”
The board said that front-runner Donald Trump did not have experience of international issues or interest in learning about them. It said Ted Cruz would “say anything to win.”
Good, one more reason not to vote for either one of them.
No surprises here. They wouldn’t endorse any viable Republican
Im still undecided. I’m waiting for Cuba’s Castro brothers opinion & for Notth Koreas’s Kim Jong-un to weigh in.
It will be cheaper for the gov’t if Clinton is elected because the White House won’t need much upkeep as she will spending her time in a different Federal facility behind bars.
I agree with the times we need a centerist who will unite both parties. Both candidates are great for the job. I have no taste for these radical guys on either side of the aisle. We have a diverse country and people on both sides have to give a little. yes the poor must realize that some of us work hard and a scoirty can’t thrive on a bernie snaders socialist give away societies. Those evil big banks are engines of the economy as well. On the other hand the rich must realize that no everyone is capable or even grew up in societies that enable them to obtain normal decent paying jobs. And they must give too. That’s why the middle ground is safer as a whole.
Personally I am a republican plus I just don’t like Hillary as a person. Therefore I am hoping for Kaisch. But if Hillary wins it won’t be the end of the world.
Coming from a bunch of people who believe everything they hear from uneducated radio talk hosts and who lack the intellectual curiosity to learn themselves, the comments above are almost amusing. Almost, but not quite, because it is never really funny when people who really are laughably misinformed just can’t recognize how little they truly know. I do suppose none of you read the NY Times. Why bother reading the country’s most respected favor when you can simply decide it is garbage? Why think when you can repeat what someone tells you? Truly sad.