So much for any legitimate claim to objectivity.
You mean, Sean should have objectively considered the Libertarian candidate on his show, as well as Hillary? Who, objectively, is left? The Constitutional Party candidate?
Trump is the winner.
Ergo, Hannity is supporting Trump.
Now, was that too complicated?
Why, he was very fair and did not say a world until everyone else dropped out.
You've GOT to be kidding, right?
Sean Hannity is a conservative. Do you think he's "objective" when it comes to liberals? Is he "objective" when he decides what topics to cover, and from what viewpoint?
I don't think that it's particularly surprising that a conservative talk show host would endorse the Republican nominee for President, especially a nominee whose policies are more conservative than any President since Ronald Reagan.
That's a lot more honest, IMHO, than those who are clearly biased but won't even admit that, for example, they're supporting Hillary.
For instance, Rush should obviously have endorsed Cruz at some point, since he was so in the tank for him.
Vote Trump!
For who?? You? We have our nominee so who else is he supposed to endorse Hillary?
+++
"You don’t get it, do you? The man has ZERO chance of being elected. Zip, zilch, nada! He entered the race with no real belief he would even get this far, and now that he’s here he seems more intent on blowing up his chances than on doing what it will take to unify a country into voting for him."
17 posted on 4/2/2016 2:28:10 PM by Jack Straw from Wichita