Ken Berwitz
Yesterday, the New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Presidency (the editorial is only about the “Democratic nomination”, but if you think the New York Times has any chance of endorsing a Republican over Hillary Clinton, you\’re deep into the kickapoo joy juice).
This, in and of itself, is not a surprise.
But I thought I\’d call to your attention the entire range of “accomplishments” that the Times listed out for Ms. Clinton\’s four decades in the public eye – from the time she was a lawyer on the Watergate committee in 1974, to her time heading education in Arkansas, to chairing the health initiative when Hubby Bubba was President, to her 8 years as a U.S. Senator to her four years as our Secretary of State.
Here is the list, in its entirety:
Mrs. Clinton helped make it possible to impose toughersanctions on Iran, which in turn led to the important nuclear deal now goinginto effect. She also fostered closer cooperation with Asian countries. Sheworked to expand and deepen the dialogue with China and to increaseWashington\’s institutional ties to the region. Mrs. Clinton had rebuked Chinawhen she was first lady for its treatment of women, and she criticized theBeijing government\’s record on human rights even as she worked to improverelations.
That\’s it. The end. Everything else in the editorial (please, please use the link and check me on this) is that she worked hard for this (nothing specific) or was a strong advocate for that (nothing specific) or is keenly aware of the need for these other things (nothing specific).
Forty years in, and the only thing The Times can say is that she “helped make it possible to impose tougher sanctions on Iran” (what did she do? Nothing specific mentioned…not that it matters, since the sanctions have been lifted for absolutely no good reason), she “fostered closer cooperation with Asian countries” (what cooperation? What specifically did she do?) and “she worked to expand and deepen the dialogue with China (by doing what? the editorial doesn\’t say).
In other words, the entire editorial is an artful attempt to disguise the fact that The New York Times cannot name one specific accomplishment of Hillary Clinton\’s. Not a single one. Zip. Nada. Nothing.
But what does that matter. She says all the right things, doesn\’t she? Who needs accomplishments anyway?
This is exactly the kind of “endorsement” I would have expected from The Times.
I am not a drinker. But I think I may change my habits for the 2016 election cycle.
