Questionable NYTimes Endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton for President

Read it here.  So The New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President as it did in 2008.

It devotes only one sentence to the illegal and criminal use of a private server for public business of the State Department, in violation of federal criminal laws:

• "Some [attacks (sic)], like those about Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server, are legitimate and deserve forthright answers." 

The Times put the cart before the horse, endorsing  Hillary Clinton before those "forthright answers" have emerged after months of flummery, dupery and nincompoopery emitted by the the erstwhile New York U.S. Senator.  The Washington Post's Chris Cilizza wrote today that Clinton's defense of her e-mail violations of security laws "hit a major bump in the road," since the State Department states that some are so sensitive that they can never be released, while she has always maintained she did nothing wrong.  It was The Times' own reporters who broke the e-mail story last year, and who deserve Pulitzer consideration.

The Times did not evidence much thought in its reflexive, defensive endorsement, failing to discuss the merits of Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign. Pity.

Fortunately, in the age of the Internet, few people take seriously the endorsements of newspapers.   

While I have enjoyed reading The Times since the age of eleven, I am mindful of what JFK said about the difference between publishers and reporters.  It is publishers who make newspaper political endorsements.   They are too often cognitive misers and conservative.

I would no more vote for someone because of a one-percenter oligopolistic newspaper publisher's political candidate endorsement than I would based on any other one-percenter, or any other manufacturing business, e.g., one that belongs to the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Trucking Association  or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  Newspapers are, after all, manufacturing businesses first, with wealthy billionaire stockholders, one-percenters who are threatened by Senator Sanders' populist critique of billionaires.