The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office—twice for Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary—and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm—NYT
The New York Times on Saturday endorsed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, saying "voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history".
The Times editorial board endorses Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, the paper said in an opinion piece.
Noting Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party, it said: "... she served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state—not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton.
"The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office—twice for Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary -- and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm."
It admitted that Clinton's main opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, "a self-described Democratic Socialist, has proved to be more formidable than most people, including Mrs. Clinton, anticipated" but concluded he "does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers".
The piece said his boldest proposals such on banks and health care reform have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people "but his plans for achieving them aren't realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas".
"The third Democratic contender, Martin O'Malley, is a personable and reasonable liberal who seems more suited for the jobs he has already had - governor of Maryland and mayor of Baltimore - than for president," it noted.
On the Republicans, it said that for "the past painful year", its presidential contenders have "been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world" but Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, "after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history".