Endorsement Race 2016

Pick someone.

That’s our recommendation in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

Understand, we’re not being wise guys. We’re simply asking voters to make a selection; don’t stay home in disgust.

Many voters may be tempted to sit this one out. They may dislike both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and find themselves pained at the thought of supporting either one.

We say, get over it.

But we’re not going to tell you whom to choose. We, too, have serious reservations about them both, and reservations as well about the third-party candidates whose presence on the ballot could make a difference.

Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, is erratic, reckless, coarse and utterly lacking in statesmanship. He has a less-than-solid grasp of policy issues and shows little interest in changing that. His candidacy has alarmed conservative U.S. leaders and America’s global allies alike.

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, lacks candor, oozes a sense of entitlement and has demonstrated stunning carelessness in the handling of classified information.

Both have enough skeletons in their closets to supply the props for a horror movie.

Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, is erratic, reckless, coarse and utterly lacking in statesmanship. He has a less-than-solid grasp of policy issues and shows little interest in changing that. His candidacy has alarmed conservative U.S. leaders and America’s global allies alike.

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, lacks candor, oozes a sense of entitlement and has demonstrated stunning carelessness in the handling of classified information.

Great leaders tap our better angels. And greatness requires “vision, integrity, courage, understanding, the power of articulation, and profundity of character.” So advised one our most respected desert neighbors, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

By these measures, there is no other choice for president this year than Hillary Clinton. Though demonized by her critics, Clinton is supremely qualified to lead, especially compared to Trump.

We have come to this decision with tremendous respect for history and The Desert Sun’s role in this community. In 90 years, we have never endorsed a Democrat. The editorial board opposed Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy and endorsed Thomas E. Dewey twice, Richard M. Nixon three times and the likes of Wendell Willkie and Alfred Landon.

Close readers of The Desert Sun will know that our opinions have moderated over the years. Vision, policy and strength of character matter more than political party.

It is unrealistic to expect perfection from our leaders. Thoughtful citizens shift with new information and changing circumstances. So, while we differ on some issues, we appreciate that Hillary Clinton has evolved with a politician’s cautiousness.

No doubt many LGBT voters would have liked her to take bolder action on same-sex marriage, which she opposed for many years but now supports.

Clearly, though, she has come a long way from 20 years ago when her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman. It took the U.S. Supreme Court to abolish that law.

In the Senate, Hillary Clinton fought for legislation to protect LGBT employees from workplace discrimination, and as Secretary of State she led the United Nations to pass its first-ever resolution on LGBT human rights, as she declared to the world, “Gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights.”

In regard to the Clinton Foundation, claims have been debunked that the charitable organization, which funds Third World crop support and access to low-cost AIDS drugs, has served as a slush fund enriching the former first family. But, concerns that donors used the Foundation to gain access to the secretary of state are valid. She should have been more diligent at distancing herself and the office from undue influence.

More generally, the Clinton obsession with secrecy that led to her use of a private email server while secretary of state brought self-inflicted, highly public wounds. Her credibility has paid a price despite countless high-level investigations that have revealed mistakes, belatedly acknowledged, but no law breaking.

Still, as the target of a decades-long crusade by political enemies, Clinton has emerged amazingly well and is a tougher, better leader for the wear.

Her efforts to help women, children and all Americans in a public life that ultimately took her on the global circuit as America’s spokeswoman make her the right choice to become our first female president.

Clinton has a record that appeals to broad swaths of Coachella Valley voters.

As first lady, she was President Bill Clinton’s main voice in trying to create a new system that would have ensured health care access to every American. Though that push ultimately failed, Clinton has worked through the years on efforts to bring better care to many different segments of society – from first responders suffering from exposure to the smoldering toxic site that was ground zero after the 9/11 attacks, to millions of children who are covered under the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Clinton’s ability to work across the aisle in the Senate – evidenced by praise she’s received from colleagues in both parties – was reflected on a broader scale during her tenure as secretary of state. The “most-traveled” diplomat tirelessly worked to bolster America’s prestige on the international scene. There’s little doubt that this experience will help her in dealing with global leaders and the nation surely will benefit from those already established relationships.

Closer to home, Coachella Valley voters should see many things to like in proposals she’s made during the long campaign. Here are four proposals most relevant to our area:

•Pushing to install 500 million solar panels across America in her first four years in office, with the goal of having enough renewable energy to power all of America’s homes within 10 years. The potential job creation and economic benefits for our area, a key solar innovation zone, are encouraging.
•“Comprehensive” immigration reform with a path to citizenship, including working to make more of the estimated 9 million green card holders full citizens and full participants in our democracy.
•Pushing passage of the Equality Act to add gender identity and sexual orientation to the list of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
•A $350 billion “College Compact” plan that gives states grants to ensure students can attend four-year public institutions without going into debt. The funds would also enable lower interest rates for those who need to borrow to cover living expenses or costs for private college tuition. Under the proposal, students would be expected to work to help pay their education costs and their parents would be expected to contribute, too.

All of these ideas, especially the massive college program, will require tough negotiations with Congress. Even many of her supporters will raise eyebrows at the price tags of these items. But having a strong, effective champion for these causes, especially one who was lauded in the Senate as supremely prepared by members from across the aisle, is something needed in Washington.

Raising these issues with sincere effort at compromise is the only way to end gridlock on Capitol Hill.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has more than earned, through her service to the country as first lady, as a senator from New York, and as secretary of state, the right to be taken seriously as a White House contender. She has flaws (some legitimately troubling, some exaggerated by her opponents), but she is among the most prepared candidates ever to seek the presidency. We are confident that she understands the role of the United States in the world; we have no doubt that she will apply herself assiduously to the problems confronting this country; and she has demonstrated an aptitude for analysis and hard work.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.

 The Nation endorses Hillary Clinton for president and believes that a substantial victory by her in November is essential to advance the progressive issues we have long championed. We supported Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, and we remain concerned about Clinton’s approach to politics and governing. But Clinton isn’t running against Sanders anymore.

The first case for Clinton can be summed up in two words: Donald Trump. In the contest between hope and cynicism, justice and prejudice, solidarity and selfishness, we can be absolutely certain that Trump is not on our side. Given the perils facing our country and our planet, we believe that Trump’s election would be a catastrophe for the United States—and for the world. We also believe our best chance right now to advance the cause of justice, rather than spend the next four years on the defensive, is to elect Clinton—and give her coattails long enough to elect a Congress committed to turning the progressive rhetoric of the Democratic Party platform into concrete legislation.

Over the course of her public career, Clinton has more than demonstrated her intelligence, tenacity, ferocious work ethic, and seriousness of purpose. As a law student, she went undercover as a “tester” to expose racial discrimination in Alabama’s private schools. She has championed the rights of women and girls on the global stage for more than 20 years. And while we may disagree with some of her solutions, Clinton has been a forceful advocate of health-care reform since her husband’s administration. She has also—most recently on the debate stage—repeatedly displayed the quality that Ernest Hemingway invoked as a definition of courage: “grace under pressure.”

Clinton showed grace in refusing to be deflected by Trump’s posturing and prevarications. But she has also shown grace in the way she’s responded to the pressure that Sanders and the movements that powered his campaign created. Clinton has long been an advocate for women, children, and the disabled. But now she seeks the presidency as a supporter of action to address climate change, criminal-justice reform, LGBTQ equality, respect for immigrants, debt-free public higher education, the expansion of Social Security, a public option to challenge health-care profiteering, and a great big hike in the minimum wage. Thanks to a populist wave—and her willingness to listen to it—Clinton is running on the most progressive platform in the modern history of the Democratic Party. We want to see that platform put into action.

The first case for Clinton can be summed up in two words: Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton is the only candidate for president with the values, experience and knowledge to meet the challenges at home and abroad. Donald Trump is stunningly unprepared and temperamentally unfit for the presidency, and he has played upon our deepest fears and worst impulses with reckless rhetoric, wild promises and flagrant disregard for the truth. His bombast makes for entertaining television, but it is not suited for the Oval Office.

Perspective gets lost in the Twitter era. America is on firmer ground than when President Barack Obama took office. The country teetered on the brink of economic collapse, and we came through the Great Recession. We were mired in two wars, and thousands of our troops have returned home. Osama bin Laden is dead, the Islamic State is under strain and the doors to Cuba are reopening. In Florida, unemployment is down, housing prices are up and urban areas from Tampa Bay to Orlando to Miami are experiencing a renaissance.

In every respect, Clinton is well prepared to capitalize on those successes and ensure more Americans benefit. Her experience as a young lawyer, first lady, U.S. senator from New York and secretary of state during Obama's first term is unmatched. She has spent a lifetime advocating for children, health care and economic opportunity regardless of race or class. Her attention to policy details and her negotiating skills are well established, and her toughness has been tested through decades of public life.

Clinton would continue the encouraging trend lines that show household incomes are up and poverty is down. She offers detailed plans for targeted tax breaks, investments in infrastructure, clean energy incentives and robust job training. She would improve the Affordable Care Act that has brought health coverage to millions. She would support women and families by boosting early childhood education, closing the pay gap and supporting reproductive freedom.

Like Obama, Clinton would push for tighter background checks for gun buyers and seek comprehensive immigration reform including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. The Democrat also recognizes climate change as a "defining challenge of our time,'' which is critical as Florida copes with evolving weather patterns and rising sea levels.

Abroad, Clinton would strengthen relationships with our allies in the global fight against terrorism. She would use tough sanctions she helped negotiate to enforce the nuclear agreement with Iran that has made the world safer. Her reversal of support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership is disappointing, but she recognizes the benefits of trade agreements that open up markets for Florida and create thousands of jobs.

Voters often mark their presidential ballots on the basis of one issue. Maybe it's abortion. Or taxes. It could be just plain "likeability."

As polls repeatedly demonstrate, neither of the candidates that the Republicans and Democrats have belched upon us are very likeable.

But if just one issue determines who will get your vote for president this year, make it this: Which candidate is competent to do the most important job in the world?

There's only one answer to that question: Hillary Clinton.

The Effingham Daily News editorial board does not typically endorse political candidates for local, state or national office. We break with that tradition in the 2016 presidential race because the stakes are so high and the consequences of the wrong choice are so potentially dire.

We endorse Hillary Clinton.

We do not ask who is the most qualified. Clinton is the only candidate put forth by the two major parties, or any party, who is qualified by any measure to lead this country. Her life on the national and world stage has made it so – agree or disagree about the extent of her success and the depth of her failure.

We have concerns about the Democratic nominee. We deplore her lack of transparency, and her serious missteps as secretary of state, specifically the use of a private email server, avoiding questions about Benghazi and inviting potential conflicts of interest by meeting with donors to her family foundation while in office. Her political ideology does not consistently fit with our views.

But for now we put those ideologies aside. They can be debated, and will be, during the course of her term if elected. Her positives of public service experience and knowledge figure heavily into our choice. She is a rational politician who at least understands compromise and proper discourse in a democracy.

Donald Trump does not.

This isn't a normal election year. The two major party candidates who are dueling for the White House are not normal candidates.

And the choice between them is so stark that there is really no choice at all.

Republican Donald Trump is a blowhard and a bully who holds outdated views on women and ethnic, racial and religious minorities; embraces a dangerous approach to global affairs; espouses potentially destructive ideas on global trade and the economy, and possesses no identifiable governing philosophy and even less experience.

Democrat Hillary Clinton has the steady temperament, inclination to compromise and the requisite deep and nuanced understanding of domestic and foreign affairs uniquely suited to provide continuity and stability to American governance at a time of uncertainty at home and increasing danger abroad.

She, unlike Trump, embraces a positive and forward-thinking vision for a nation that works together to address its shared challenges and celebrates its mutual triumphs.

Trump's dystopian view of a crumbling nation, failing at home and shunned and defeated overseas, is the embodiment of America's worst angels, not its highest ideals.

More than anything else, the president should inspire his or her fellow countrymen, not constantly lecture them that their best days are behind them.

Trump's wildly narcissistic claims that he alone can solve America's problems are the delusional ramblings of a despot-in-waiting, not the Leader of the Free World.

Because of that, and for additional reasons we will outline below, the editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News endorses Hillary Clinton for president.

Speaking to the undecided:

But our intent here is not merely to confirm the preferences of Clinton's supporters or the suspicions of Trump's backers.

Our deeper purpose is to speak to the undecided among you and those contemplating giving their votes to the two independent party candidates who are also in the race.

Let us be clear: The stakes of the 2016 election are so high that a vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson or Green Party candidate Jill Stein, would be a squandered vote that, at its worst, could hand the presidency to Trump.

And that is an unacceptable outcome in a campaign as consequential as this one.

And lest readers think this is the run-of-the-mill endorsement from the "liberal, mainstream media," we will point out that our members include two self-identified Republicans, both of whom voted with the majority to endorse Clinton; and both of whom have deep reservations about the Republican nominee.

This board, and its predecessors, has also endorsed its share of Republicans, including George W. Bush in 2000, Attorney General candidate David Freed in 2012, and U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, R-4th District, in 2014, among others.

Our endorsement here, then, is based on an examination of the challenges facing the nation and the candidate best-suited to address them.

That candidate, hands down, is Hillary Clinton.

From its founding, America has been a beacon of light and liberty in a world often fraught with demagogues and dictators. Whether living in a big city or the hollows and hills of Appalachia, our national values eschewed government by bullies employing strong-arm tactics to rise to power and rule with iron fists.

On Nov. 8 voters will determine who is the best qualified presidential candidate to ensure we remain true to our ideals, improve economic opportunities at home, and continue to strive to build a safer, more peaceful world for people everywhere.

The Bluefield Daily Telegraph, having considered whether Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump is up to the enormous task, comes down on the side of Clinton. Her experience and public service to the nation as First Lady for eight years, U.S. Senator for eight years and Secretary of State for four years have prepared her to be president and commander in chief. Trump, while inviting to some as a chance for dramatic change, has zero public service experience. For the past 1 1/2 years of his campaign, he has raised serious questions about his values, his temperament and his bombastic promises.

In coalfield country, our choice is not an easy decision. President Obama's environmental and energy policies have created economic hardship in West Virginia. And we realize it would be easy to mark a ballot based on bitterness and anger over loss of jobs associated with coal mining. Yet no one can dispute that we need to expand our economic base beyond its coal dependence in a world that is increasingly moving to other forms of energy.

However, we can not embrace Donald Trump, a candidate who lies, disparages women and minorities, and lacks fundamental skills in politics, worldliness and demeanor. Trump may be a reality TV star, but he is in no way qualified to lead our country in this tumultuous and dangerous day and age.

Donald Trump must not be president.

Alabama has voted for every Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan, a man that captured our imagination with a hopeful view of America as a shining city upon a hill. Nearly 40 years later, Donald Trump offers a deeply cynical view of an America in ruin, an America that seems to exist only in his own dangerous mind. Even before the revelation of video evidence of Trump making lewd, demeaning comments advocating sexual advances on women against their will, we knew that he was unfit to lead this country. We unite with people across this nation — people of all parties, including an increasing number of Republicans — to reject the pessimism of his candidacy.

Following the national party realignment of the mid-20th century, anger and distrust of the Democratic Party runs as deep in Alabama as anywhere in the country. And while more than 300,000 people supported her in the state primary, distrust of Hillary Clinton runs even deeper for many.

But 2016 isn't a normal election cycle, and Donald Trump isn't a normal presidential candidate. Nor is he a normal Republican. He is a man who is frighteningly unfit to be president. And she is his only roadblock.

Any endorsement of Clinton will be a bitter pill to swallow for many in our state. For some, her lifelong record of public service is the mark of a career politician, rather than a public servant. We've all watched her struggle to defend her emails, her charitable foundation and her record on foreign policy. Still, Hillary Clinton is more than qualified to be president, and in winning her party's nomination has reinforced the promise that our democratic process is equally open to all.

We've watched Clinton weather every challenge — public and personal — that's faced her over the last 30 years and, unlike Donald Trump's late night Twitter meltdowns, Clinton has consistently remained presidential in her response and demeanor. In truth, her presidency is fairly easy to predict. Through her time as first lady in Arkansas, first lady in the White House, as a U.S. senator, as secretary of state and two campaigns for the presidency, two trends have emerged: Clinton genuinely cares about children and families, but she is also an opportunist.

Like her husband, President Bill Clinton, she has built a political career out of triangulating to the center. She's less liberal than President Barack Obama and less conservative than President George W. Bush — and after 16 years of volatility, she is likely to maintain the slow growth of the status quo.

We could do worse than four years of a stable hand that understands how government works and is willing to compromise with the Republican opposition. Donald Trump, in contrast, is an unstable force that would do lasting damage to America, at home and abroad.

Another wave of endorsements including another "haven't endorsed a Democrat in xxx years" and the first "Not Clinton" endorsement.