The New York Times editorial is cast explicitly as a positive affirmation of Hillary Clinton’s qualifications, rather than an argument against those of her rival, Donald Trump. | Getty New York Times endorses Hillary Clinton

The editorial board of The New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton on Saturday, urging the newspaper’s readers to vote for the former secretary of state as the person best suited to confront “bigoted, tribalist movements and their leaders on the march” across the globe.

“In the Middle East and across Asia, in Russia and Eastern Europe, even in Britain and the United States, war, terrorism and the pressures of globalization are eroding democratic values, fraying alliances and challenging the ideals of tolerance and charity,” the editorial reads.


The Times, a reliable supporter of liberal politicians, brushes aside Clinton’s “occasional missteps,” which — along with relentless Republican attacks and tough media coverage — have contributed to “distorted perceptions of her character.”

Specifically, the editorial laments Clinton’s “penchant for secrecy,” as evidenced by her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state. But the paper asks readers to put aside their concerns about Clinton’s communications habits in service of the larger good.

“That decision deserved scrutiny, and it’s had it,” the board writes. “Now, considered alongside the real challenges that will occupy the next president, that email server, which has consumed so much of this campaign, looks like a matter for the help desk.”

The editorial is cast explicitly as a positive affirmation of Clinton’s qualifications, rather than an argument against those of her rival, Donald Trump. “Our endorsement is rooted in respect for her intellect, experience, toughness and courage over a career of almost continuous public service, often as the first or only woman in the arena,” it says.

“She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship,” the board writes. “As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.”

But in a parenthetical aside, the board previews a forthcoming broadside against the Republican nominee that will be published on Monday: “We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history."