The New York Times’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination was “fascinatingly defensive,” according to Frank Rich, a liberal columnist who wrote for the Times for 20 years.
In an interview with his own publication, New York magazine, Rich said the Times’s endorsement was insufficiently critical of Clinton’s shortcomings.
“The editorial was fascinatingly defensive,” he said. “In making the case for Clinton, the paper praised Clinton’s experience in foreign affairs but never mentioned her biggest foreign-policy failure, her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. And the editorial never mentioned the murky finances of the Clinton family foundation, a continuing source of fascination to investigative reporters at every major news organization in the country, including the Times.”
The Times endorsed Clinton over the weekend, ahead of the Iowa caucuses, calling her “the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.”
