It's not exactly a gushing endorsement, but The Economist has declared it is with Hillary, noting she's a "better candidate than she seems."
In an editorial brimming with SAT words, the highbrow magazine called Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee “America’s best hope” in 2016 -- and assuring those still on the fence that she isn't as bad as people might think.
“Our vote, then, goes to Hillary Clinton. Those who reject her simply because she is a Clinton, and because they detest the Clinton machine, are not paying attention to the turpitude of the alternative. Although, by itself, that is not much of an endorsement, we go further. Mrs. Clinton is a better candidate than she seems and better suited to cope with the awful, broken state of Washington politics than her critics will admit.”
The news magazine could not help but consider why the race is so close. How could Clinton, a former first lady, senator and secretary of state struggle against an unpopular, self-proclaimed billionaire? The magazine determined that she ran in the wrong century.
"Mrs. Clinton would have been better-suited to the first half-century of presidential campaigns, when the candidates did not even give public speeches," the magazine argued.
Despite the editorial's title, readers had to reach to pull out the endorsement because the essay notes that Clinton had a long career where at times she “occupied a no-man’s-land between worthy and unworthy, legal and illegal.”
But, luckily for Clinton, the magazine determined she is worthy now (despite the new FBI investigation into her emails and suspicions about the Clinton Foundation).
Oh, yes, and it helps that she's a woman, according to The Economist.
“So judgment and experience are essential and, despite Republican attempts to tarnish her over an attack in Benghazi in 2012, Mrs. Clinton possesses both. As a senator she did solid work on the armed-services committee; as secretary of state she pursued the president’s policies abroad ably. Her view of America has much in common with Mr. Obama’s.
"She rightly argued for involvement early on in Syria. She has a more straightforward view of America’s capacity to do good; her former boss is more alert to the dangers of good intentions. The difference is of degree, though. Mrs. Clinton helped lay the foundations for ending the embargo on Cuba, striking a nuclear deal with Iran and reaching agreement with China on global warming. A Clinton presidency would build on this,” the editorial read.
Hope springs eternal.