Thank you,from someone who truly loves our Country.
The question is: does it help? Has there been a study the proves or dis proves the endorsement of an editorial board of the dominate newspaper in a particular area influences an election?
Deeming both major party candidates “horrible,” the paper (Union Leader) instead endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.
You mean the guy who gives interviews with his tongue sticking out?
You mean the guy who gives interviews with his tongue sticking out?
I am pretty sure they are talking about the stoner who doesn’t know what Aleppo is.
"publishing an editorial on Friday titled “It Has To Be Hillary Clinton.”
Absolutely!!
That’s just the action of a guy whose appeal is to stoners and goldbugs.
Not knowing what Aleppo even is, however, should totally disqualify him.
That’s nice and all, but naturally, it comes with the typical dose of conservative bullshit about Hillary’s supposed “lack of transparency and honesty.” Somehow, no doubt due to the usual echo-chamber among media hacks, this conservative smear has become touted as conventional wisdom. She and Bill have been under a microscope, in a fish bowl, and every other metaphor for public scrutiny for 30 freaking years, and have had every detail of their public and private lives investigated in detail, re-investigated, re-re-investigated, and then started all over again; and she and Bill have released their tax returns going back decades. So where is this supposed unprecedented lack of transparency? And lack of honesty? I have asked on numerous boards, including some conservative ones, for evidence of this supposed lack of honesty, and no one has yet been able to cite an actual dishonest statement or position she has ever stated. One of the usual suspects trotted out is, “She lied about the cause of Benghazi!” Which is of course nonsense, because she was stating exactly what the CIA intel said. There’s also the usual claim that Hillary lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, but again, that is what the military reports were at the time – that it was unsafe to de-plane because of sniper fire at the airport. From the left, we get the usual nonsense about “She lied about Iraq,” which barely deserves a response because it’s so idiotic, given that she authorized the use of force if inspections didn’t work, and has since admitted and acknowledged that she was wrong about letting Bush have authority to invade. That doesn’t make it a lie, of course. Now we get the “she lied about her emails!”, which is, of course, utter bullshit, as Comey was forced to concede under detailed questioning.
So, thanks for the endorsement, Inquirer, but spare us the right-wing smears, okay?
Applause to the editorial board of the Cincy paper, but since they are most likely considered to be part of the mainstream media who only have it out for Trump, his supporters won’t give two rats about this.
It could be that the editorial board senses the tightening down or even the abandonment of first amendment protections for the press under a Trump presidency. After all, look how DT has treated the press throughout his campaign.
It’s too bad it took the correction of a five plus year old lie, and a half-a$$ed correction at that, to get a conservative paper to see the light. Apparently, all the rest of the stuff that went before wasn’t relevant enough.
“Our reservations about Clinton pale in comparison to our fears about Trump,” the board writes.
… Prime example of a backhanded compliment… 
At this point, it’s better than saying they’re endorsing Jill or Gary. I’ll take anything that could be remotely construed as positive press for Hillary. Anything that could get her one more vote. We need Hillary to win. By any legal means possible. Period, end of discussion.
DT and his minions can’t walk back any of those statements. They are a matter of public record.
However, I need Hillary to mix these commercials with solid evidence of what she intends to do for the American people. That will convince far more voters than showing them what a rat her opposition is, which I’m sure they already know. I don’t want her to play it too safe. And she needs to wipe him off the floors on Monday - because I bet she doesn’t get a second chance and he bails on the rest of the debates.
Why do you gotta harsh my mellow, maaaan? The sun’s going to swallow us all up one day, anyway.
The Cincinnati Enquirer has endorsed the Democratic presidential nominee for the first time in nearly a century, publishing an editorial on Friday titled “It Has To Be Hillary Clinton.”
Yes, 1,000 times, Yes…
" going two weeks without saying something misogynistic, racist or
xenophobic is hardly a qualification for the most important job in the
world."
Zing!
If it even turns a few heads in Ohio … I’m good with it ! —
Good, but who reads newspapers? (Having said that, more people will hear about this endorsement than ever would have read it before the 'net.) And how many are swayed by endorsements? Few. Those who really don’t yet know who they are going to vote for are few, and not likely to be swayed by news outlet endorsements.
This may have some value with possible third-party voters, making them realize why this has to be a two-party race.
Well, good but would it kill them to refer to him as President Obama?
It would be so cool if we got to see a Rove 2.0 meltdown —
And who actually follows the Koch Brothers’ libertarian agenda + legalizing pot.
You know, having lived in Ohio some years ago, this is bigger than it may sound. Cincinnati is a very conservative city overall, the center of one of the most conservative metropolitan areas in all the US. So for their flagship newspaper to basically state, “Trump is nuts and frightening and should not be President,” is important. They are never going to fawn over Hillary Clinton or give her much credit (though they do pay her some compliments in the write-up), and yes they will continue to hound her. But don’t underestimate how much of an influence this may have on those voters who are dyed in the wool Republican stalwarts yet simply don’t feel comfortable voting for Trump. It is editorials like this that may sway them to listen to their better instincts.
The other aspect of this is they could easily have issued a non-endorsement, but they didn’t. They did, however reluctantly, state that Hillary should be the next President.