Hillary Clinton for president 

 Hillary Clinton for president 
 The Democratic nominee is a choice Americans can be proud of.
 View on www.washingtonpos... 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 The Post's View 

 Hillary Clinton for president The Democratic nominee is not the lesser of two 
evils. She is a choice Americans can be proud of. (Adriana Usero, Julio 
Negron/The Washington Post)

 By Editorial Board https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-posts-view/ 
October 13 at 6:06 AM
 IN THE gloom and ugliness of this political season, one encouraging truth is 
often overlooked: There is a well-qualified, well-prepared candidate on the 
ballot. Hillary Clinton has the potential to be an excellent president of the 
United States, and we endorse her without hesitation.
 [The closing argument against Donald Trump 
 In a moment, we will explain our confidence. But first, allow us to anticipate 
a likely question: No, we are not making this endorsement simply because Ms. 
Clinton’s chief opponent is dreadful.
 Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is dreadful, that is true — 
uniquely unqualified as a presidential candidate. If we believed that Ms. 
Clinton were the lesser of two evils, we might well urge you to vote for her 
anyway — that is how strongly we feel about Mr. Trump. But we would also tell 
you that was our judgment.
 Fortunately, it is not.








 Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail
 View Photos

 The Democratic presidential nominee hits the road as Election Day nears.

 We recognize that many Americans distrust and dislike Ms. Clinton. The 
negative feelings reflect in part the bitter partisanship of the nation’s 
politics today; in part the dishonest attacks she has been subjected to for 
decades; and in part her genuine flaws, missteps and weaknesses.
 We are not blind to those. Ms. Clinton is inclined to circle the wagons and 
withhold information, from the closed meetings of her health-care panel in 1993 
to the Whitewater affair, from the ostensibly personal emails she destroyed on 
her own say-so after leaving the State Department to her reluctance to disclose 
her pneumonia last month. Further, she and her husband, former president Bill 
Clinton, are not the first to cash in on the speech circuit, but they have done 
so on an unprecedented and unseemly scale. And no one will accuse Ms. Clinton 
of an excess of charisma: She has neither the eloquence of President Obama nor 
the folksy charm of former president George W. Bush or, for that matter, her 
 But maybe, at this moment in history, that last weakness is also a strength. 
If Ms. Clinton is elected, she will attempt to govern an angrily divided 
nation, working with legislators who in many cases are determined to thwart 
her, while her defeated opponent quite possibly will pretend her victory is 
 What hope is there for progress in such an environment — for a way out of the 
gridlock that frustrates so many Americans? The temptation is to summon a 
“revolution,” as her chief primary opponent imagined, or promise to blow up the 
system, as Mr. Trump posits. Both temptations are dead ends, as Ms. Clinton 
understands. If progress is possible, it will be incremental and achieved with 
input from members of both parties. Eloquence and charm may matter less than 
policy chops and persistence.
 It is fair to read Ms. Clinton’s career as a series of learning experiences 
that have prepared her well for such an environment. As first lady, she failed 
when she tried to radically remake the American health-care system. Instead of 
retreating, she reentered the fray to help enact a more modest but important 
reform expanding health-care access to poor children.
 Her infamous “reset” with Russia offers a similar arc. We have not hesitated 
to criticize the Obama administration’s foreign policy, including its lukewarm 
support for Ukraine in the face of a Russian invasion, but criticism of the 
“reset” is off-base. When Ms. Clinton launched the policy, Dmitry Medvedev, not 
Vladimir Putin, was president of Russia, and nobody — maybe not even Mr. Putin 
— knew how things would play out. It was smart to test Mr. Medvedev’s 
willingness to cooperate, and in fact the United States and Russia made 
progress under Ms. Clinton’s leadership, including in nuclear-arms control and 
in facilitating resupply of U.S. troops in Afghanistan across Russian 
territory. As Mr. Putin reasserted himself and Russia became more hostile, Ms. 
Clinton was clear-eyed about the need to adjust U.S. policy.
 She was similarly clear-eyed after winning election to the Senate in 2000. You 
might have expected her to hold some grudges, especially toward Republican 
legislators who had lambasted her husband in the most personal terms during his 
then-recent impeachment and Senate trial. But colleagues in both parties found 
her to be businesslike, knowledgeable, intent on accomplishment, willing to 
work across the aisle and less focused than most on getting credit.
 Professionals in the State Department offer similar testimonials about her 
tenure as secretary during Mr. Obama’s first term: She reached out, listened to 
diverse points of view and, more than many politicians who come to that job 
with their own small teams, was open to intelligent advice. She was respected 
by employees and by counterparts overseas. She set priorities, including 
ensuring that “women’s rights are human rights” would rise from slogan to 
 Her 2016 presidential campaign offers one more case study of lessons learned — 
a model of efficiency and of large egos subordinated to a larger cause — after 
her far less disciplined 2008 effort.
 Ms. Clinton, in other words, is dogged, resilient, purposeful and smart. 
Unlike Mr. Clinton or Mr. Bush when they ascended, she knows Washington; unlike 
Mr. Obama when he ascended, she has executive experience. She does not let her 
feelings get in the way of the job at hand. She is well positioned to get 
something done.
 So what would she do? Her ambitions are less lofty than we would like when it 
comes, for example, to reforming unsustainable entitlement programs, and than 
many in her party would like, in their demand, for example, for free college 
tuition. But most of her agenda is commendable, and parts may actually be 
achievable: immigration reform; increased investment in infrastructure, 
research and education, paid for by higher taxes on the wealthy; sounder 
family-leave policies; criminal-justice reform. In an era of slowing growth and 
growing income inequality, these all make sense, as do her support for curbing 
climate change and for regulating gun ownership.
 Ms. Clinton also understands the importance of U.S. leadership in the world, 
her campaign-year anti-trade epiphany notwithstanding. Inside the Obama 
administration, Ms. Clinton was a voice for engagement on behalf of democracy, 
human rights and stability. At times (the surge in Afghanistan), Mr. Obama 
listened. At times (Syrian intervention), he did not — and the world is far 
more dangerous because of that. Ms. Clinton can be faulted, perhaps, for 
excessive loyalty; though the hyper-investigated Benghazi affair proved to be 
no scandal at all, Ms. Clinton should have argued more persistently to help 
stabilize Libya after its dictator fell.
 But her foreign-policy inclinations were sounder than her president’s. It is 
telling that, even as she tacked left to survive the primaries, she did not 
give ground to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on the core value of American 
engagement in the world. Allies would find her more reliable than the incumbent 
and far more dependable than her opponent. The world would be more secure as a 
 No election is without risk. The biggest worry about a Clinton presidency, in 
our view, is in the sphere where she does not seem to have learned the right 
lessons, namely openness and accountability. Her use of a private email server 
as secretary was a mistake, not a high crime; but her slow, grudging 
explanations of it worsened the damage and insulted the voters. Her long 
periods of self-insulation from press questioning during the campaign do not 
bode well.
 The Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good in the world, but Ms. Clinton 
was disturbingly cavalier in allowing a close aide to go on its payroll while 
still at State 
 and in failing to erect the promised impenetrable wall between the foundation 
and the government. She would have to do better in the White House.
 Even here, however, Mr. Trump makes her look good. She has released years of 
tax returns. She has voluntarily identified her campaign bundlers. The Clinton 
Foundation actually is a charitable foundation, not a vehicle for purchasing 
portraits of herself. She is a paragon of transparency relative to her opponent.
 Mr. Trump, by contrast, has shown himself to be bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, 
narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually 
lazy, contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America’s enemies. As 
president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world.
 Rather than dwell on that danger here, we invite you to 
 There we have assembled a timeline of Mr. Trump’s most alarming statements, 
accompanied by video and linked to some of the most trenchant commentary from 
our columnists, guest contributors, editorial writers and cartoonists over the 
past 16 months. This closing argument is far from exhaustive, but it is 
horrifying enough. If you have any doubts about Mr. Trump’s unfitness, please 
take a look.
 Meanwhile, Ms. Clinton underlined her fitness for office in what was 
essentially the first major decision of her potential presidency: her choice of 
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) as running mate. Rather than calculate how best to 
assuage or excite this or that part of her base, Ms. Clinton selected a person 
of sound judgment, with executive and legislative experience and unquestionable 
capacity to serve as president if necessary.
 That presages what Americans might reasonably expect of a Clinton presidency: 
seriousness of purpose and relentless commitment, even in the face of great 
obstacles, to achievements in the public interest. We believe that Ms. Clinton 
will prove a worthy example to girls who celebrate the election of America’s 
first female president. We believe, too, that anyone who votes for her will be 
able to look back, four years from now, with pride in that decision.



Kirim email ke