Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination

The New York Times ^ | 1/30/2016 | New York Times Editorial Board

[Lazamataz]

For the past painful year, the Republican 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. 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.

Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. 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.

[indthkr]

New York values at work.

[RightGeek]

[ripley]

“The NYT has got to know they are preaching to a very small crowd of total bafoons and far left socialist/commies.”

They are not a very small crowd.

Spend some time in a blue state and you’ll find yourslelf surrounded by a majority of them. (They’re all over the place.)

Scary.

IMHO

[Slyfox]

[refermech]

Jack the Ripper was brilliant but flawed also...

[nascarnation]

Saw a bit of CNN as I was surfing channels while on the treadmill. One of Hillary’s capos was on whining about Burney “going negative” with adverts after promising not to.

[Slyfox]

I am so surprised because Bernie is the most transparent and honest of all the demoncraps.

But then of course, what is Hitlary's definition of ''going negative''?

[TruthWillWin]

For the past painful year, the Republican 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. 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.

Nope, not a hint of bias here..../s

[nascarnation]

They were complaining that Burney gave Hildabeast a pass on emailgate in the first debate and apparently now in Iowa and NH he’s running attack ads about it.

[Theodore R.]

Oh, they knew Bernie would understand but Mrs. Bill wouldn’t.

[Theodore R.]

Believe it our not, Ripley is right. These liberals are everywhere even in MS now!

[Kodos the Executioner]

“Sure... that’s why you live in sh*t... call it what you like; it still smells like sh*t to me.”

Nice shop.

[Steve_Seattle]

The New York Times Editorial Board is composed of morons and hypocrites.

[Steve_Seattle]

God forgive me, but if the NYT editorial board was subject to a Charlie Hebdo-type attack, I would applaud. I detest those people.

[ripley]

“...even in MS now...”

Nah.

They’re only under every desk and in every nook and cranny.

/s/

IMHO

[Slyfox]

They were complaining that Burney gave Hildabeast a pass on emailgate in the first debate and apparently now in Iowa and NH he is running attack ads about it.

Say it ain't so!!

Bernie has always been honest and transparent.

This is indeed a sad, sad day.

[Impy]

Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party.

James "Aunt Fancy" Buchanan (D) was close enough.

[BillyBoy]

Heh. If the libs ever get their fantasy of the "first gay president", we can bring up Buchanan to annoy them.

Not that it matters though. Ben Cardozo was the first latino on the Supreme Court, but he didn't fit the media's narrative like Sonia Sotomayor did.

[GOPsterinMA]

(S)he was quite a strumpet. “Aunt Fancy”, I mean.

[Fresh Wind]