A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

The New York Times’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary consists of an unreadable, illogical piece of fiction. In this post, I will critique the paper’s position in detail, but first I want to take a step back and explain to people what I think is going on in the bigger picture.

In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.

One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.

With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.

This is unfortunate, since the New York Times does some great work and has some fantastic journalists. Indeed, while I have shared many stories from the paper over the years, like Hillary Clinton, it has been tragically and consistently wrong on some of the most important issues of our time. Wall Street on Parade recently published an article highlighting a few of them, such as the paper’s support for the Iraq War and a dismantling of Glass Steagall. While the paper has publicly admitted those opinions were mistakes, by endorsing Hillary, such apologies come across as insincere at best.

As you read the Hillary endorsement, you can’t help but sense a bit of fear and desperation on behalf of the paper. Indeed, it becomes quite clear that the editorial board isn’t actually supporting Clinton as much as it is scrambling to defend the status quo. Much like Congress, the New York Times isn’t working in the public interest. Rather, it’s working to maintain and defend a current system characterized corruption, militarism and injustice — a system which is destroying the social fabric of this once great nation. The reason it fights to maintain this system, is because that system works well for the New York Times. As such, the editorial board seems more than content to continue to provide liberal cover for status quo criminality.

So without further ado, let’s take a closer look at the endorsement. What follows are excerpts from the New York Times piece, Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination:

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.

These first two paragraphs set the stage for the entire piece. While it starts off proudly pointing out that Democrats are debating real issues, the following paragraph immediately focuses on superficial things, such as her gender and the fact that she has served in many important positions of power within imperial America.

Mrs. Clinton’s main opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, has proved to be more formidable than most people, including Mrs. Clinton, anticipated. He has brought income inequality and the lingering pain of the middle class to center stage and pushed Mrs. Clinton a bit more to the left than she might have gone on economic issues. Mr. Sanders has also surfaced important foreign policy questions, including the need for greater restraint in the use of military force.

In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.

In the above paragraphs, the paper is forced to admit that Sanders is fighting for economic justice and reduced militarism, but then doesn’t offer a conclusion as to whether he is right on these issues and merely brushes his positions off as “unrealistic.” It once again simply zeroes in on all the “experience” Hillary has attained during the lustful pursuit of money and power that has characterized much of her life.

The Times goes on to confidently proclaim that Clinton has “good, achievable proposals” for dealing with the crime syndicate known as the big banks, yet fails to mention that Obama also talked a good game in 2008 and still turned out to be a perfect status quo puppet. Obama’s deceit and cronyism is a big reason why the American public is so enraged this election, yet the paper believes Hillary, with an unparalleled history of corporate sponsorship is supposed to be trusted. Can they really be this stupid?

Skipping a few paragraphs, the endorsement starts to become downright absurd. We see the following:

Mr. Sanders has scored some rhetorical points against Mrs. Clinton for her longstanding ties to Wall Street, but she has responded well, and it would be comical to watch any of the Republican candidates try to make that case, given that they are all virtually tied to, or actually part of, the business establishment.

This is where the Times suddenly starts conveniently forgetting that she is running against Bernie Sanders as opposed to the Republicans. It insultingly brushes off Sanders’ justified points on her and her husband being in the pocket of Wall Street by saying “she has responded well.”

How has she responded well exactly? It doesn’t tell us. I for one do recall her shamelessly saying she supported Wall Street due to the attacks of 9/11, did I miss something else? Instead of explaining to readers how she supposedly justified her financier ties, the paper goes on to discuss Republicans. This is very dishonest and condescending.

While that part was bizarre enough, it gets even more confused and irrational when it comes to foreign policy. For example:

As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton worked tirelessly, and with important successes, for the nation’s benefit. She was the secretary President Obama needed and wanted: someone who knew leaders around the world, who brought star power as well as expertise to the table. The combination of a new president who talked about inclusiveness and a chief diplomat who had been his rival but shared his vision allowed the United States to repair relations around the world that had been completely trashed by the previous administration.

Mrs. Clinton can be more hawkish on the use of military power than Mr. Obama, as shown by her current call for a no-fly zone in Syria and her earlier support for arming and training Syrian rebels. We are not convinced that a no-fly zone is the right approach in Syria, but we have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton would use American military power effectively and with infinitely more care and wisdom than any of the leading Republican contenders.

The paper claims that as Secretary of State she “allowed the United States to repair relations around the world that had been completely trashed by the previous administration.” I keep trying to understand exactly what they mean by that. How exactly did that happen. By revelations that the NSA has been secretly spying on the entire planet? By droning children including American citizens to death all over the world via a shadowy program of questionable legality? Or did she accomplish it by leading the charge in the destruction of Libya, which is now a failed state and an ISIS breeding ground? Perhaps I missed something.

The the paper then doubles down on this preposterous claim by stating “we have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton would use American military power effectively and with infinitely more care and wisdom than any of the leading Republican contenders.” 

I’m wondering where this confidence springs from since it certainly couldn’t be from her track record. More importantly, why is the New York Times comparing her to the Republicans when it comes to militarism when this is a primary endorsement against Bernie Sanders. This is the second time the paper has chosen to shift comparisons to the Republican side as opposed to Sanders.

Next, the paper tries to defend her position on the enormous corporate giveaway masquerading as a trade deal known as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). It writes:

Mrs. Clinton, who has been accused of flip-flopping on trade, has shown a refreshing willingness to learn and to explain, as she has in detail, why she changed her mind on trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. She is likely to do more to help workers displaced by the forces of trade than previous presidents have done, and certainly more than any of the Republicans.

First of all, she hasn’t “been accused of flip-flopping on trade,” she most definitively did flip-flop on trade. Recall last year’s post: Where Does Hillary Stand on the TPP? 45 Public Statements Tell You Everything You Need to Know.

Moreover, the Times tries to make it seem as if she has suddenly seen the light on this trade deal, when in reality she refused to comment on it until she was able to determine which way the political wind was blowing. All you have to do is go back and look at the headline from the Daily Kos article from 2015: The Reason Hillary Clinton Refuses to Discuss the TPP.

The paper then ends this paragraph with a sweeping statement replete with absolutely no facts to back it up: “She is likely to do more to help workers displaced by the forces of trade than previous presidents have done, and certainly more than any of the Republicans.”

Notice the last part of that line. Yep, it once again compares her favorably to Republicans, when this is a primary endorsement against Bernie Sanders. Why is the paper not comparing her to Sanders? I think we all know the answer.

Incredibly,the paper does it yet again in its closing paragraph.

Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading Republican candidates offer — a vision in which middle-class Americans have a real shot at prosperity, women’s rights are enhanced, undocumented immigrants are given a chance at legitimacy, international alliances are nurtured and the country is kept safe.

Sanders isn’t mentioned by name, but Republicans are brought into focus yet again. At the end of the day, this entire endorsement is a gigantic puff piece designed to pull on emotional heartstrings and reader bias against Republicans, as opposed to presenting any detailed comparison between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on the existential issues facing the nation. The reason they have chosen this tactic is clear — it’s because Sanders has the track record, credibility and courage to actually take on the status quo and this scares the New York Times. This is because, unlike the American people, the New York Times quite likes things the way they are. This is the real reason the editorial board supports Hillary, it just can’t come out and say it.

For related articles, see:

“Non-Official Cover” – Respected German Journalist Blows Whistle on How the CIA Controls the Media

This is How the U.S. Government Convinces a Newspaper to Kill a Story

20-Year CBS News Veteran, Sharyl Attkisson, Details Massive Censorship and Propaganda in Mainstream Media

Editor in Asia Leaves Bloomberg News Citing Censorship

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1

 Follow me on Twitter.


 Add your comment
  1. Michael…as you have enlightened people on more than one occasion..ALL of the Main stream Media..Is the mouthpiece of the STATUS Quo…lol

  2. their endorsement reads like a homework assignment. no passion just an attempt to give the teacher what they expect and receive a good grade.

  3. Right on target, Mike.
    I hadn’t seen that editorial before. It really is pathetic. She’s the pick over her primary opponent because she’s better than other who aren’t even choices in those primaries?! What?

    I’ve joked with friends who are blue team fans that they should wish for the red team to win the presidency so that their media outposts can go back to at least occasionally questioning the actions of the executive branch . Now I wonder if they’re so ethically dead that they wouldn’t be able to even if there was a red team president.

  4. Lifestyles of the Richly Fatuous

    The self-appointed ‘paper of record’ for this republic goes on record supporting someone for the presidency who, with little effort, can be shown to be a liar, a fraud, a national security risk, a shameless demagogue, a power-hungry harpie, a sell-out to any humanitarian principles, ethically challenged, a barely adequate lawyer, and a self-seeking and self-promoting shyster who has made the art of the financial shakedown into a juggernaut.

    This is who The New York Times supports.

    Anyone with a conscience working for that rag should burn the fucking building down to the ground.

  5. Excellent article! It deserves wide circulation.

  6. Sanders isn’t any less of a lying politician or maintainer of the status quo than Hillary is. You pointed out to me one time how he didn’t support the Iraq War. Bullshit – he voted against it in a meaningless vote but then voted to continue financing it. He is not the ‘anti-establishment’ candidate you think he is. Every time you provide any support for Sanders, you hurt your reputation in the freedom movement.

    • Michael Krieger

      I’ll give you two more. He voted against the Patriot Act and the banker bailouts (TARP).

      These three issues: Militarism, banksterism and ubiquitous surveillance have been three of my core issues and complaints ever since I started writing. These are not marginal issues for me, they are core issues.

      If you disagree, that’s fine. If you think it’ll hurt “my reputation” that’s fine too, we can let the public decide. Either way, I will always write what I believe, not what I think a particular audience wants to hear.

    • You may not be concerned about your reputation in this sense, but I am; I need you to have a good reputation. So many liberty writers lately seemed to have abandoned core principles out of what they consider prudence. I respect your opinion and writing tremendously, and I share your articles quite frequently, but I’m really struggling to follow your logic here. It’s important to remember that your core issues are all derived from the existence of the state, and if there’s one thing to be said about Sanders, it is that he wants to increase the power of the state. There simply is no political solution to militarism, surveillance, and banksterism because those issues wouldn’t exist without the state. Let’s not forget that he is a socialist – the arch enemy of freedom. Endorsing Sanders to fight a political problems is no different than ‘right’ anarchists endorsing Trump to fight the ‘left’. It’s short sighted and ultimately counter productive to freedom. Again, I have the greatest respect you and your writing; I sincerely hope that you are able to step back and see the forest for the trees.

    • Michael Krieger

      I see the forest quite clearly.

      As President, Sanders could have a direct impact on militarism and materially avoid the death and destruction that would surely be the core principles of a Hillary Presidency. Likewise, he would not appoint Wall Street advisors, not bailout Wall Street in the next economic collapse, and appoint an Attorney General who would prosecute white collar crimes.

      I haven’t endorsed Sanders to date due to his economic statism, but it is a fact that he is not just the lesser of two evils, but actually very good on issues I care very deeply about. If someone told me Sanders would materially improve on more than half of the issues I care about most, versus the others doing nothing, it would be irrational to not support him. You may see it as “counterproductive” I literally see it as saving lives. He isn’t just slightly better on core issues to me on which he could have a material impact, he is exponentially better.

      So we respectfully disagree. Let’s move on.

  7. I suspect the people who had a fit when Mike praised Elizabeth Warren will have a cow over the “defense” of Bernie Sanders. It seems reasonable that even the “enemy” (socialists) deserve praise when they advocate the correct approach to problems. …But then, Jörg Haider was practically crucified in the world media for saying Adolf Hitler had a good employment policy. Oh well.

  8. "Bill Clinton, pick up the House of Blue Lights phone please..."

    Chris Webb: Purist thinking doesn’t work on planet earth. The barbarians are within the gates, at the banquet table and are in the process of roasting your children.

    If I were a parasitic elitist, I would want an entire country of freedom enthusiasts like you who are so ideologically correct you consider a writer like Michael a detriment to the movement.

    Jesus. It doesn’t get any richer than that.

  9. Prouder ‘N’ Punch!
    The #1 newspaper in the US of Everything Is Rigged, Illegal (or pending)

    Hip hip hoorah, eh?

  10. Great piece. I was about to attempt to reply to a friend who supports Hillary because he says “we need someone who understands Washington”, and I didn’t have the energy to begin to explain why that’s completely wrong in general, and very wrong in the case of HRC, and you saved me a lot of work. Gratefully, I only have to link to your post. Thanks much

  11. But everyone with these starry-eyed ideas that politics and voting actually works for the average man or woman on the street are just soooo sadly mistaken!! Politics and voting works for NOBODY these days (probably not for ANY days!), except the ones who seek power and authority over the ones who vote! That is why we have the old saying “If voting actually worked, they’d outlaw it”. Politics and voting is only a dog and pony show to keep the peasants from revolting too much. Doesn’t anybody else notice that changing political parties doesn’t really change the government or society in general, except to continually make things even WORSE over the years?!?!
    The only real solution to all of this corruption, cronyism and pandering is to just abolish all politics and voting for any kind of a job, public or private sector, and rely solely upon a merit based system. If you can’t prove that you are fully qualified for a job that you want and seek, then you have no way to get in the running for a luck of the draw chance at getting it!
    Public office jobs are not really so much of a job to earn a paycheck, as a crusade built on a trust that you will actually SERVE the people who depend upon you to do a good job and are paying some of what they earn to you for doing it. Politicians have no loyalties to anyone, outside of the ones who help the most in their political campaigns. This has got to STOP!!!
    NO government job at any level should last for more than five years, and no one should have more than 20 years of government jobs total, should they be so lucky to have their name drawn out of a drum 5 times. No pensions, no lavish pay or travel expenses, 20 years hard labor upon conviction for making or taking bribes while in office, death penalty strictly enforced for treason or fraud while seeking or while in office. Who won’t like this plan, except for the ones who are fully entrenched in the current system and will most likely wind up in jail very quickly?? Get the thirst for money and lust for power out of government jobs, and you will have a prosperous nation. But when you reward crimes, that’s what you get even more of! Doesn’t anybody else understand this either?

  12. Yeah, my subscription has been canceled for almost 1 year!

Leave a Reply

5 Trackbacks

  1. Former Head of the NAACP to Endorse Bernie Sanders | Liberty Blitzkrieg (Pingback)
  2. Clinton PANIC – Madeleine Albright Says “There’s a Special Place in Hell for Women Who Don’t Help Each Other” | Liberty Blitzkrieg (Pingback)
  3. Did Hillary Clinton Really Win More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders Despite a Landslide Loss? | Liberty Blitzkrieg (Pingback)
  4. America’s Corrupt Media – How Reporters Took Direct Orders from Hillary Clinton’s Staff | Liberty Blitzkrieg (Pingback)
  5. New York Times Editorial Board Endorses Economic Fascism – Supports Banning the $100 Bill | Liberty Blitzkrieg (Pingback)