The Washington Post endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for president on Thursday. That was predictable. What was less predictable was the incredibly weak, and misleading, case the Post editorial board attempted to make as it argued that she is not the lesser of two evils, but will make an “excellent” president.
The Post cannot highlight Clinton’s achievements. Instead, it re-casts her many failures as “a series of learning experiences that have prepared her well” for the Oval Office.
For example, it excuses Clinton’s role in the ill-fated Russian “reset” by pretending that no one could have predicted the result: “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.” Everyone knew that Putin controlled the real power behind Medvedev, and the Russians immediately took advantage of Clinton’s weakness, pushing back U.S. missile defenses.
The Post cites Clinton’s “executive experience” as Secretary of State, but cites no actual accomplishments. The word “Iran” does not appear once in the editorial.
Most laughable of all, the Post describes the Benghazi terror attack as a “hyper-investigated” controversy that “proved to be no scandal at all.” Never mind Clinton’s dereliction of duty on the night of Sep. 11; never mind her refusal to provide increased security beforehand; never mind her lies about a YouTube video; never mind the intimidation of witnesses when investigations began; never mind the emails she destroyed, while under subpoena.