Endorsements From Weird Places

The case for Hillary

The 3 biggest newspapers in South Carolina, The Post and Courier, The State and the Greenville News are all reliably Republican in a reliably red state. In 1964 South Carolina was one of only 6 states to vote for Barry Goldwater when he was crushed by Lyndon Johnson, 43,127,041 to 27,175,754 in the popular vote and 486-52 in the electoral college. The last time South Carolina voted for a Democrat was in 1976 when they helped elect neighboring Georgia's Jimmy Carter; that was 40 years ago and this year they will certainly give their 9 electoral votes to Trump. Romney beat Obama 55-45% in 2012. A week from tomorrow, Hillary is on track to win all 22 South Carolina counties Obama won plus Florence and possibly Georgetown and Chesterfield counties (which are toss-ups right now). The endorsement of her presidential bif by The State this weekend came as something of a shock. The editors made the case that conservatives have no logical choice but to vote for her. By dint of "character and personality" they pronounce Trump "simply unfit for the presidency, or any public office" and that Americans "must rely on Hillary Clinton for any meaningful change in Washington politics" despite her "significant flaws."

This is the first time our editorial board has endorsed a Democratic presidential nominee since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Through the years, we evaluated nominees based on our support for reducing the national debt, strengthening national security and other conservative values. Those values compel us to endorse Mrs. Clinton this year.


...In this era of voter discontent, Americans want change. But we must consider carefully what will change and who will lead it. Of the two candidates, the choice is clear. Mrs. Clinton’s experience, stability and knowledge make her more likely than Mr. Trump to effectively tackle the nation’s problems.

Ostensibly an even weirder editorial board will to look past Hillary's "weaknesses" (and partisan affiliation) came this morning from the Financial Times, which pointed out enthusiastically that "She is manifestly more competent than Trump and his braggadocio and divisiveness." They are a mothpiece for elite conservatism and Hillary fits the bill just fine for them.

Rarely in a US presidential election has the choice been so stark and the stakes so high. The contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has provided high drama, amply demonstrated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s reckless, last-minute intervention in the saga of Mrs Clinton’s emails. But there must be no doubt about the gravity of the 2016 election, for America and the world.

The international order of the past 70 years is fraying, maybe even breaking down. The Brexit vote in June likely removes a pillar of the EU. The Middle East points to a shattered system; further east, in the Pacific, China is becoming more assertive, challenging America’s dominant role in the region and the postwar Bretton Woods system. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has become emboldened, threatening Nato’s borders, spreading havoc in Syria, and apparently orchestrating leaks to influence the US election itself.

This is a moment for the renewal of American leadership. One candidate has the credentials. Mrs Clinton has served as first lady, senator for New York and US secretary of state. Mr Trump deals in denigration not diplomacy. He has abused allies, threatening to remove east Asia’s nuclear umbrella, sideline Nato and unleash trade wars. Mr Trump casts himself in the role of a western strongman to stand alongside the likes of Mr Putin.

Mr Trump has demonstrated contempt towards American democracy itself. He has persistently raised the prospect of a rigged election and declined, even when pressed, to guarantee he would accept the result. He has threatened to jail Mrs Clinton. Such arrogance is unprecedented and it points to a fatal flaw in his character. The first role of the president is to be commander-in-chief, in charge of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. Mr Trump has a thin skin and a questionable temperament. For all his many years as a reality TV host, he is simply not ready for prime time.

The 2016 election, more than any in recent memory, is a test for the legitimacy of the US political system, with profound implications for the liberal world order. Mrs Clinton carries enough baggage to fill a Boeing 747. She is not trusted by the majority of voters. But she is manifestly more competent than Mr Trump whose braggadocio, divisiveness and meanness are on daily display. Despite her faults, Mrs Clinton is eminently qualified to be the first woman elected to the White House. She has the Financial Times’ endorsement.

The Financial Times is published in London by Nikkei and it is an engine for the fake free trade agreements so hated at the grassroots level. In the past their most enthusiastic editorial support has been for Reagan and Thatcher. A different kind of endorsement:



And now for the kind of endorsement no sane candidate would ever want. No sane candidate-- so that leaves out Donald Trump, who seems delighted with this kind of support from supporters like this racist, homophobic crackpot:



The sound clip above is from William Johnson a Trump supporting neo-Nazi. It's being called in to every Republican in Utah and it typifies what Trump supporters are all about. "I am a farmer and a white nationalist. I make this call against Evan McMullin and in support of Donald Trump... Evan has two mommies. His mother is a lesbian, married to another woman. Evan is okay with that. Indeed Evan supports the Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage. Evan is over 40 years old and is not married and doesn’t even have a girlfriend. I believe Evan is a closet homosexual." Nice, huh? Evan tweeted it today: