In case you don’t feel like reading through 902 responses to the New York Times’s seriously rose-tinted endorsement of Hillary Clinton, well, here’s comment no. 903:
“I would vote for Hillary over whoever the Republican nominee will be, but this "portrait” is seriously airbrushed. Hillary helped lie us into an entirely unnecessary and unsuccessful war with Libya, repeating in miniature what the Bush Administration did in Iraq. She is entirely too hawkish, almost compulsively confrontational with nations that don’t behave themselves, Israel and Saudi Arabia excepted. Here’s a newsflash for you, NYT: a no-fly zone in Syria would not be the right approach. It would be yet another Hillary-approved Middle East disaster. I could say more, but it would be more of the same. It takes the contemporary Republican Party to make Hillary look not terrible.“
I didn’t feel like writing a book for the Times on how bad their endorsement was, but, seriously, this was one lame editorial. Hillary’s email scandal isn’t the crime the Right would desperately like to believe it is, but it was an obvious and shameless attempte to exempt herself from FOIA requests. This is precisely the sort of thing that the Clintons do to their supporters, over and over again, leaving a mess for others to clean up. Because they’re important, and we’re not. I’m soooo glad I live in DC and can afford to cast a protest vote. If I lived in Virginia I’d feel a duty to vote for the Democrat, and I’d feel dirty for doing so.
