LA Times Editorial Board (June 3rd) - Hillary Clinton is the better candidate to take on Trump

[TomCADem]

The LA Times notes that it has endorsed Clinton not because she is more likely to win the nomination but because she is vastly better prepared than Sanders for the presidency.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-hillary-california-20160603-snap-story.html

That is a long-shot campaign even if Sanders finishes first in California, not because the nomination process is rigged in Clinton’s favor -- it isn’t – but because she has been more successful in appealing to voters. She has dominated the primaries, amassing 3 million more votes than Sanders (who has fared much better in caucuses) and she leads in pledged delegates. For that reason, some argue that Sanders supporters in this state should resign themselves to the inevitable and vote for Clinton on Tuesday.

* * *

We say that with full recognition that Sanders has captured the imagination of many Democrats with his articulate attacks on economic inequality and his talk of a political revolution. He can take credit for pressing Clinton to champion the interests of those who have been left behind in this economy.

But Clinton is not only more knowledgeable about domestic and international affairs than Sanders, but also more likely to achieve objectives they have in common. Her speech last week on foreign policy in San Diego -- in which she skillfully skewered Trump for his ignorance and recklessness -- was a reminder of the breadth of her understanding of international affairs. On domestic policy, her positions on issues such as healthcare and financial regulation are less utopian than what Sanders has proposed but also more realistic.

* * *

It’s true that Republicans often rebuffed Obama’s offers of cooperation, but it’s hard to imagine a President Sanders engaging any more successfully with them. Clinton, who as a senator and secretary of State was able to work cooperatively with Republicans, strikes us as being better equipped to reach across the partisan divide, something that will be necessary even if the Democrats regain control of Congress. A Clinton presidency would be more prosaic than a Sanders administration, but it also is likely to be more effective.

[merrily]

1. What a surprise.

[Trust Buster]

2. Of course Hillary is the better candidate to take on Trump. The voters said so.

[roguevalley]

9. not in head to head polls with him in the general election. she ties or falls behind him.

Imagine what will happen if the FBI indict her? Mug shot commercials everywhere.

[Trust Buster]

10. Polls aren't votes. Sanders is a joke.

[panader0]

3. It's so convenient to forget she's under investigation.

[Tarc]

5. The majority of voters do not see much substance to the investigation

[RobertEarl]

4. An establishment rag supporting the establishment?

Golly-gosh-gee-whiz

Hillary has a way about her that the republicans are just thrilled about.

Obama, being AA, had the republicans, which obviously the rag is blind too, all upset and pissing themselves. Hillary is maybe one step up from that but she is similar. And this rag thinks she will be able to work better with the sane party that impeached her husband? What dumb ass idiots they are.

Of course Bernie makes the rag pee themselves, and that's a good thing. The rag is so far up the butt of the establishment they can't see anything. Fuck 'em.

[Live and Learn]

6. +10,000 nt

[R B Garr]

7. You are kidding yourself if you pretend

this isn't a great endorsement. I know lots of people who wait for these endorsement recommendations to finalize their votes.

Any candidate covets these endorsements.

[MrMickeysMom]

8. She has never demonstrated better knowledge or any decision making skill... Geez...

I wonder who controls THIS over massaged message?

I haven't seen that much manipulation since the LAST corporately controlled message.

"Resign yourselves, prols" - to which I say, "Fuck Off, Oligarchy."