Does it come in the way of neutral press coverage? In the context of the upcoming US Presidential elections, these questions hold greater weight. On Sunday, The New York Times endorsed Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton for the United States Presidency over her Republican opponent, businessman Donald Trump. The daily praised Clinton’s “intellect, experience, and courage”.
It argued that any comparison between her and Trump “would be an empty exercise” as Clinton had a distinguished record of public service and policy ideas. On Trump, the daily said that the candidate “discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway”.
There is no doubt that it aims to persuade those unsure of voting for Clinton in November’s election to shed their inhibitions. It is on a campaign to prevent Trump from securing victory. Such assessments come a day before both candidates duke it out in the first of three televised debates. On domestic issues, Hillary may have the answers.
Meanwhile, Trump's predilection for vacillation on major domestic policy issues is huge. But on matters pertaining to foreign affairs, there is little to differentiate between the two. Hillary does not seem like the lesser evil. Her track record suggests that she is only too trigger-happy. She voted for the fateful Iraq invasion and insisted in the initial years following the war that it was "wise and just".
As Secretary of State, the Democratic nominee also proposed the covert program (apparently larger than the one later authorised) to provide arms to Syrian rebel groups fighting Bashar al-Assad’s government as Secretary of State. One of the main beneficiaries of this policy, albeit inadvertently, was the ISIS. She also directly oversaw the campaign for regime changes in Libya and Ukraine. The negative consequences of those interventions have been only too obvious. Yes, Trump is no peacenik.
But at least Trump seeks better ties with the Russians. This could go some way towards reducing the violence in Syria and taking out the ISIS. In a recent column for Politico, Adam Walinsky, former legislative assistant and speechwriter to slain US Senator Robert F. Kennedy, writes: “Only one American candidate has pointed out how senseless it is to seek confrontation with Russia and China, at the same time that we are trying to suppress the very jihadist movements that they also are attacking.” He was referring to Donald Trump.